Upload
hadiep
View
223
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
غزة –الجامعة اإلسالمية
آلية الهندسة
عمادة الدراسات العليا
Factors Influencing Time and Cost Overruns on
Construction Projects in the Gaza Strip
العوامل التي تؤثر على زيادة المدة الزمنية وتكلفة مشاريع اإلنشاءات في قطاع غزة
Jomah Mohammed Al-Najjar
Supervised by
Prof. Dr. Adnan Enshassi Professor of Construction Engineering and Management
A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for
Degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering – Construction Management
The Islamic University of Gaza
April, 2008
The Islamic University – Gaza Faculty of Engineering Higher Education Deanship
I
Dedication
To my loving parents who supported me all the way; to my
wife whose constant dedication and love enlightened me; to
my sons whose innocent energy was and still is a source of
inspiration; to all of my friends and colleagues who stood
beside me with great commitment; I dedicate my research,
hoping that I made all of them proud.
Jomah M. Al-Najjar
II
Acknowledgement
• I would like to express my gratitude to all those who gave me the possibility to
complete this thesis. I am deeply indebted to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Adnan
Enshassi from the Islamic University - Gaza whose help, stimulating suggestions
and encouragement helped me in all the time of research for and during writing of
this thesis.
• Special thanks to construction management staff of the Islamic University of
Gaza for their academic and scientific support throughout my study of MSc.
• Special thanks for statistician (Dr. Samir Saffi ) who supported me very much.
• Special thanks to Higher Education Division at Engineering Facility for their
administration and academic support.
• Special thanks for Palestinian contractors, consultants and owners for their
participation in filling the questionnaire and getting the information of case
studies.
• Finally I would like to give my special thanks for my parents and wife whose
patience and love, enabled me to complete this work.
III
Abstract
Construction industry is considered as one of the most important industries in Palestine. It
is well known that most construction projects in Gaza Strip exposed to time and cost
overrun or both. This phenomena may affect the progress of construction industry in
Gaza Strip as well as may expose many institutions of construction to be destroyed.
Literatures of previous studies were classified into two main parts which are: (1) factors
influencing time overruns of project; (2) factors influencing cost overrun. Most related
researches were revised which included the study of these factors in many countries.
The aim of this research is to assess factors influencing time and cost overruns on
construction projects in Gaza Strip. The objectives of the study were achieved through
two approaches, the first one was a valid questionnaire that was obtained from
contracting companies, consultants, and owners in Gaza Strip. The second by studying
five cases with five projects exposed to time and cost overrun.
The study clarified that “Strikes, Israeli attacks and border closures" was the most critical
factor that influence project delay. The survey also indicated that "material- related
factors" occupied the second rank in importance, where "the lack of materials in markets"
and "delay in materials delivery to the site" were among the most important factors
affecting delay.
The study illustrated that "prices fluctuations of constructions materials" which was due
to border closure was one of the most important factors that may lead to cost overrun.
Also it clarified that contractor's delay of material delivery and equipment have led to
cost overrun. The study also clarified that prices inflation highly contributes to cost
overrun.
The study recommended owners, contractors, and consultants to hold their
responsibilities to avoid any delay or cost overrun which could be achieved by good
management of the project and finding new methods for storing the needed materials
from the beginning of the project. The study also recommended the government to adopt
laws through Palestinian legislative council to prevent materials monopoly. Also it
recommended the government with the necessity of dealing with new entrances such as
Rafah entrance to guarantee material transfer into Gaza Strip.
IV
ملخص البحث
تعتبر صناعة اإلنشاءات أحد أهم الصناعات في فلسطين، وأنه أصبح من المعروف أن معظم مشاريع اإلنشاءات في
دم صناعة . قطاع غزة تتعرض للتأخير أو لزيادة التكلفة أو لهما معًا ى تق ؤثر عل أنها أن ت لذلك فإن هذه الظاهرة من ش
.عديد من المؤسسات المعنية باإلنشاءات إلى االنهياراإلنشاءات في قطاع غزة، آما قد تعرض ال
: وقد انقسمت المراجعة األدبية للدراسات السابقة في هذا المجال إلى قسمين رئيسيين وهما
.العوامل التي تؤثر على حدوث التأخير للمشاريع الهندسية) 1(
. العوامل التي تؤثر على زيادة تكلفة المشاريع الهندسية) 2(
دول ولقد د من ال إن الهدف الرئيسي للبحث هو . تمت مراجعة هذه البحوث والتي شملت دراسة هذه العوامل في العدي
ة مشاريع اإلنشاءات في قطاع غزة ى . دراسة العوامل التي تؤثر على زيادة المدة الزمنية وتكلف م الوصول إل د ت ولق
تم استالمها من شرآات المقاوالت ، المكاتب االستشارية األول وهو استبانه صالحة : أهداف الدراسة من خالل أمرين
أخير " أي خمس مشاريع" والمؤسسات المالكة في قطاع غزة، والثاني عبر دراسة خمس حاالت دراسية تعرضت للت
.وزيادة التكلفة
ى "أوضحت الدراسة أن ررة عل ابر واإلضرابات المتواصلة واالجتياحات اإلسرائيلية المتك " قطاع غزة إغالق المع
واد ق بم ي تتعل ل الت ا أوضحت الدراسة أيضًا أن العوام اريع، آم أخير المش ى ت ؤثر عل ي ت ل الت م العوام ن أه ان م آ
أخ واد في األسواق وأيضًا الت واد ياالنشاء احتلت المرآز الثاني في األهمية ، حيث أن ندرة وجود الم د الم ر في توري
.على حدوث التأخيرللموقع آانا من أهم العوامل التي تؤثر
ابر "أظهرت الدراسة أيضًا أن ى " تذبذب أسعار مواد اإلنشاء بسبب إغالق المع ؤدي إل ي ت م األسباب الت ان من أه آ
ا أظهرت الدراسة أيضًا أن . زيادة التكلفة ة للمشروع "آم دات الالزم ام والمع واد الخ د الم اول في توري أخير المق " ت
دًا .تؤدي إلى زيادة تكلفة المشروع ر ج واد االنشاء يساهم بشكل آبي أوضحت الدراسة أيضًا أن التضخم في أسعار م
.في زيادة التكلفة
أخير أو ادي حدوث أي ت ة لتف ئولياتهم المختلف ك بتحمل مس اول واالستشاري والمال د أوصت الدراسة آل من المق وق
روع و إ ليمة للمش ق اإلدارة الس ن طري ك ع روع، وذل ة للمش ادة تكلف ة زي واد الالزم زين الم دة لتخ رق جدي اد ط يج
انون الفلسطيني من أجل . للمشروع منذ بدايته وقد أوصت الدراسة بسن قوانين من خالل المجلس التشريعي ضمن الق
ح لضمان . منع احتكار المواد ر رف ل معب دة مث ابر جدي ة بضرورة التعامل مع مع وأيضا أوصت الدراسة الحكوم
. اع غزةدخول المواد إلى قط
V
Table of Contents
CHAPTER ONE : INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 1.1 Construction industry background ......................................................................... 1 1.2 Time and cost overruns in Gaza Strip ................................................................... 2 1.3 Research problem ..................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Research aim ............................................................................................................. 4 1.5 Research objectives .................................................................................................. 4 1.6 Limitation and Assumptions ................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................. 5 2.1 Definition of time and cost overruns .................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Time overruns ............................................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Cost overruns ................................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Types of delay ...................................................................................................................... 6 2.2.1 Excusable delays ........................................................................................................... 7
2.2.1.1 Changes ................................................................................................................. 7 2.2.1.2 Differing Site Conditions ...................................................................................... 8
2.2.2 Concurrent delays ......................................................................................................... 8 2.2.3 Compensable delays ..................................................................................................... 9 2.2.4 Critical delays ................................................................................................ 10
2.3 Delay responsibility ............................................................................................... 10 2.4 Causes of time and cost overruns ....................................................................................... 10
2.4.1 Causes of time overruns (delay) ................................................................................. 10 2.4.2 Identifying factors that influence cost overruns .......................................................... 16
2.5 Delay mitigation in the construction industry .................................................................... 27 2.6 Time variance for building projects ................................................................................... 28
2.6.1 Discussion on the major causes contributing to time variance .................................... 28 2.6.1.1 Policy-related Causes .......................................................................................... 28 2.6.1.2 Owner-related Causes .......................................................................................... 29 2. 6.1.3 Design-related Causes ......................................................................................... 29 2.6.1.4 Contractor-related Causes ................................................................................... 29 2.6.1.5 Consultant-related Causes ................................................................................... 30
2.7 Time and cost overruns in Gaza Strip ................................................................................ 30 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................... 32
3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 32 3.2 Research strategy ............................................................................................................... 32 3.3 Research design .................................................................................................................. 32 3.4 Population .......................................................................................................................... 34 3.5 Sample Size Determination ................................................................................................ 34 3.6 Research Location .............................................................................................................. 36 3.7 Methodology used in previous studies ................................................................ 37 3.8 Methodology of this thesis .................................................................................... 41
3.8.1 Questionnaire approach ................................................................................ 41 3.8.2 Case Studies ................................................................................................... 41
3.9 Questionnaire design ............................................................................................. 41 3.9.1 Factors added from the researcher experience ........................................................... 42
3.10 Questionnaire content ....................................................................................................... 43 3.10.1 Organization profile .................................................................................................. 43 3.10.2 Factors influencing time overruns at construction project ........................................ 44 3.10.3 Factors influencing cost overruns ............................................................................. 44
3.11 Pilot study......................................................................................................................... 44 3.11.1 Notes of Part A (organization profile) ...................................................................... 45 3.11.2 Notes of part B (Factors influencing time overruns) ................................................ 45 3.11.3 Notes of part C (Factors influencing cost overruns) ................................................. 45
VI
3.12 Data Measurement ........................................................................................................... 46 3.13 Statistical Validity of the Questionnaire .......................................................................... 46
3.13.1 Criterion Related Validity ......................................................................................... 47 3.13.2 Structure Validity of the Questionnaire .................................................................... 47
3.14 Reliability of the Research ............................................................................................... 47 3.14.1 Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha .................................................................................. 48
3.15 Process of data and analysis ............................................................................................. 49 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................................................... 50
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 50 4.2 Part A: Population characteristics ........................................................................ 50
4.2.1 Type of respondents organization ............................................................... 50 4.2.2 Type of work executed by the respondents organization ......................... 51 4.2.3 Respondents designation .............................................................................. 52 4.2.4 Experience of respondents ........................................................................... 53 4.2.5 Location of organization ............................................................................... 54 4.2.6 Cost of projects executed by the organization ........................................... 54 4.2.7 Number of constant employees ................................................................... 55
4.3 Part B: Factors influencing time overruns at construction projects ............... 56 4.3.1 Group1: Project related factors ................................................................... 56 4.3.2 Group2: Contractor's responsibilities .......................................................... 60 4.3.3 Group3: Consultant's responsibilities .......................................................... 66 4.3.4 Group 4: Owner's responsibilities ................................................................. 70 4.3.5 Group 5: Professional management factors ............................................... 74 4.3.6 Group 6: Design and documentation factors ............................................. 78 4.3.7 Group 7: Materials related factors ............................................................... 82 4.3.8 Group 8: Execution related factors ............................................................. 85 4.3.9 Group 9: Labour and equipments factors ................................................... 89 4.3.10 Group 10: Contractual relationship factors ................................................ 92 4.3.11 Group 11: Government relations factors .................................................... 95 4.3.12 Group 12: External factors ........................................................................... 97 4.3.13 Ranking of all factors influencing time overruns (delay) from point view of contractors, consultants and owners ...... 101 4.3.14 Comparison among contractor, consultant and owner regarding to the important factors of time overruns ...................................................................................................... 106 4.3.15 Ranking of factors influencing time overruns from point view of all respondents of contractors, consultants and owners. .................................................................................. 108
4.4 Groups influencing time overruns at construction projects .............................................. 112 4.4.1 Materials ................................................................................................................... 112 4.4.2 External Factors ........................................................................................................ 112 4.4.3 Professional management ........................................................................... 113 4.4.4 Owner's responsibilities .............................................................................. 113 4.4.5 Contractual relationship .............................................................................. 114 4.4.6 Consultant's responsibilities ....................................................................... 114 4.4.7 Government relationship ............................................................................ 114 4.4.8 Contractor's responsibilities ........................................................................ 115 4.4.9 Execution ...................................................................................................... 115 4.4.10 Design and documentation ......................................................................... 116 4.4.11 Labour and equipment ................................................................................ 116 4.4.12 Project ........................................................................................................... 116
4.5 Factors influencing cost overruns at construction projects ............................. 117 4.5.1 Contractors view .......................................................................................... 119 4.5.2 Consultants view ......................................................................................... 121 4.5.3 Owners view ................................................................................................ 123 4.5.4 Ranking of factors influencing cost overruns from point view of all respondents of contractors, consultants and owners. .................................................................................. 125
VII
4.6 Degree of agreement among the Owners, Contractors, and Consultants for time and cost overruns groups ....................................................................................................................... 127
CHAPTER FIVE: CASE STUDIES .......................................................................................... 130 5.1 Case study No 1: Construction of AL - Jnena clinic center ............................................. 130
5.1.1 Project background ................................................................................................... 130 5.1.2 Project History .......................................................................................................... 131
5.1.2.1 Bidding stage ..................................................................................................... 131 5.1.2.2 Evaluation stage................................................................................................. 132 5.1.2.3 Awarding stage .................................................................................................. 132
5.1.3 Assessment ............................................................................................................... 132 5.1.3.1 Contractor opinion ............................................................................................. 132 5.1.3.2 Consultant opinion ............................................................................................ 133 5.1.3.3 Owner opinion ................................................................................................... 133 5.1.3.4 Comments .......................................................................................................... 134 5.1.3.5 Researcher opinion ............................................................................................ 134
5.2 Case study No 2: Construction of financial ministry building in Gaza Strip ................... 134 5.2.1 Project background .................................................................................................... 134 5.2.2 Project History ............................................................................................. 135
5.2.2.1 Bidding stage ..................................................................................................... 135 5.2.2.2 Evaluation stage................................................................................................. 136 5.2.2.3 Awarding stage .................................................................................................. 136
5.2.3 Assessment ............................................................................................................... 137 5.2.3.1 Contractor opinion ............................................................................................. 137 5.2.3.2 Consultant opinion ............................................................................................ 137 5.2.3.3 Owner opinion ................................................................................................... 138 5.2.3.4 Comments .......................................................................................................... 138 5.2.3.5 Researcher opinion ............................................................................................ 139
5.3 Case study No 3: Extension work of two elementary schools in Khanyonis ................... 139 5.3.1 Project background ................................................................................................... 139 5.3.2 Project History .......................................................................................................... 140
5.3.2.1 Bidding stage ..................................................................................................... 140 5.3.2.2 Evaluation stage ............................................................................................... 141 5.3.2.3 Awarding stage ................................................................................................. 141
5.3.3 Assessment ............................................................................................................... 142 5.3.3.1 Contractor opinion ............................................................................................. 142 5.3.3.2 Consultant opinion ............................................................................................ 142 5.3.3.3 Owner opinion ................................................................................................... 143 5.3.3.4 Comments .......................................................................................................... 143 5.3.3.5 Researcher opinion ............................................................................................ 143
5.4 Case study No 4: Construction of distribution ware stores houses for the ministry of social affairs ...................................................................................................................................... 144
5.4.1 Project background ................................................................................................... 144 5.4.2 Project History .......................................................................................................... 145
5.4.2.1 Bidding stage ..................................................................................................... 145 5.4.2.2 Evaluation stage ............................................................................................... 145 5.4.2.3 Awarding stage .................................................................................................. 146
5.4.3 Assessment ............................................................................................................... 146 5.4.3.1 Contractor opinion ............................................................................................. 146 5.4.3.2 Ministry of social affairs opinion ...................................................................... 147 5.4.3.4 Comments ........................................................................................................... 147 5.4.3.5 Researcher opinion ............................................................................................ 148
5.5 Case study No 5: Developing International Roads in Umm Al Naser ............................. 148 5.5.1 Project background ................................................................................................... 148 5.5.2 Project History .......................................................................................................... 149
5.5.2.1 Bidding stage ..................................................................................................... 149
VIII
5.5.2.2 Evaluation stage................................................................................................. 149 5.5.2.3 Awarding stage ................................................................................................... 150
5.5.3 Assessment ............................................................................................................... 150 5.5.3.1 Contractor opinion ............................................................................................. 150 5.5.3.2 Consultant opinion ........................................................................................... 151 5.5.3.3 Owner opinion ................................................................................................... 152 5.5.3.4 Comments .......................................................................................................... 152 5.5.3.5 Researcher opinion ............................................................................................ 153
5.6 Summary of case studies .................................................................................................. 153 CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................... 154
6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 154 6.2 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 154
6.2.1 Factors influencing time overruns (delay) ................................................................. 154 6.2.1.1 Project related factors ........................................................................................ 154 6.2.1.2 Contractor's responsibilities................................................................................ 155 6.2.1.3 Consultant's responsibilities .............................................................................. 155 6.2.1.4 Owner's responsibilities ..................................................................................... 155 6.2.1.5 Professional management .................................................................................. 156 6.2.1.6 Design and documentation ................................................................................ 156 6.2.1.7 Materials related factors .................................................................................... 156 6.2.1.8 Execution related factors ................................................................................... 157 6.2.1.9 Labour and equipment ....................................................................................... 157 6.2.1.10 Contractual relationship ................................................................................... 157 6.2.1.11 Government relationship .................................................................................. 157 6.2.1.12 External factors ................................................................................................ 157
6.2.2 Top ten factors which cause time overruns according to contractors, consultants and owners views ...................................................................................................................... 158 6.2.3 Groups influencing time overruns ............................................................................ 159 6.2.4 Factors influencing cost overruns ............................................................................. 159 6.2.5 Comparison between the results of questionnaire and the results of case studies .... 161
6.3 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 161 6.3.1 Contractors should give special attention to the following factors ........................... 161 6.3.2 Owners should consider the following factors .......................................................... 163 6.3.3 Consultants should look to the following points ....................................................... 163 6.3.4 Government and the high policies agencies of Gaza Strip ....................................... 164
References ................................................................................................................................... 165 Annex 1: The results of validity test of all categories of questionnaire ..................................... 171 Annex 2: Questionnaire in English ............................................................................................. 184 Annex 3: Questionnaire in Arabic .............................................................................................. 195
IX
List of Tables
Table 2.1 :Variables influencing time, and/or cost control in Indonesia ………………………..……………11
Table 2.2 : Factors that influencing cause time overruns …………………………………………...………...13
Table 2.3 : Factors influencing time overruns ………………………………………………………………. 19
Table 2.4 : Factors influencing cost overruns ………………………………………………………………....26
Table 3.1 : Factors of time and cost overruns added by researcher experience……………………………....42 Table 3.2 : Notes of part B of the questionnaire ……………………………………………………………....45
Table 3.3 : Notes of part C of the questionnaire ……………………………………………………………....46
Table 3.17 :Correlation coefficient of Questionnaire and the total of this field at N= 124 …………………...47
Table 3.18 : Cronbach's Alpha for each Category of time overruns of the questionnaire and all the questionnaire…………………………………………………………………………………………………….48 Table 3.19 : Cronbach's Alpha for each Parts of time and cost overruns of the questionnaire and all the questionnaire …………………………………………………………………..…………………….…………49
Table 4.1 : Experience of respondents (years) …………………………………………………....…………..53
Table 4.2 : Project related factors that lead to time overruns ………………………………………...………57
Table 4.3 : Correlation test of project group among contractor, consultant and owner ……………………..60
Table 4.4 : Contractors responsibilities factors that lead to time overruns ………………………….……….61
Table 4.5 : Correlation test of contractor responsibility group between contractor, consultant and owner....66
Table 4.6 : Consultants responsibilities factors that influencing time overruns ………………………............67
Table 4.7 : Correlation test of consultant responsibility group between contractor, consultant and owner ...70
Table 4.8 : Owner's responsibilities Factors that influencing time overruns ………………………………...71
Table 4.9 : Correlation test of owner responsibility group among contractor, consultant and owner .……...74
Table 4.10: Professional management factors that lead to time overruns……………...……………………...74
Table 4.11: Correlation test of professional management group among contractor, consultant and owner…78
Table 4.12 : Design and Documentation factors that influencing time overruns ………………...…………..79
Table 4.13: Correlation test of design and documentation group among contractor, consultant and owner ..81
Table 4.14 : Materials related factors that lead to time overruns …………………………...………………...83
Table 4.15: Correlation test of materials group among contractor, consultant and owner …………….........85
Table 4.16 : Execution related factors that lead to time overruns ……………………………………….…...87
Table 4.17: Correlation test of execution group among contractor, consultant and owner …….....................89
Table 4.18 : Factors influencing time overruns (Labor and equipments factors) ……………….…………..89
Table 4.19: Correlation test of labour and equipment group between contractor, consultant and owner .92
Table 4.20 : Contractual relationship factors that lead to time overruns …………………………..………..93
Table 4.21 : Correlation test of contractual relationship group among contractor, consultant and owner ...95
Table 4.22 : Government relations factors that influence time overruns ………………...………………….96
Table 4.23: Correlation test of government relations group among contractor, consultant and owner …...97
Table 4.24 : External factors that lead to time overruns ……………………………………...……………...98
Table 4.25: Correlation test of external factors group among contractor, consultant and owner …….…..100
Table 4.26 : Factors influencing time overruns from point view of contractors, consultants and owners.101
Table 4.27: Correlation test of time overruns group between contractor, consultant and owner…….…...106
Table 4.28: The most important factors of time overruns ………………………………..……………..…..106
X
Table 4.29: Factors influencing time overruns due to the point view of all respondents (contractors, consultants
and owners) ………………………..……………………………………………………………………….…..108
Table 4.30 : Groups influencing time overruns at construction projects …………………………………..….112
Table 4.31 : Factors influencing cost overruns from point view of contractors, consultants and owners …...117
Table 4.32: Correlation test of cost overruns group among contractor, consultant and owner ………………125
Table 4.33: Factors influencing cost overruns due to the point view of all respondents (contractors, consultants
and owners) …………………….………………………………………………..…………………………… 125
Table 4.34: Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance ……………………………………….………………........128
Table 5.1: The characteristics of construction of AL – Jnena clinic center ………………….…………...……128
Table 5.2 :The characteristics of the participated companies of project No. 1……………………..…….…....132
Table 5.3 :The characteristics of construction of financial ministry building in Gaza Strip ……………..…...135
Table 5.4: The characteristics of the participated companies of project No. 2 …………..………………........136
Table 5.5: The characteristics of extension work of two elementary schools in Khanyonis ……...…….….....139
Table 5.6 :The characteristics of the participated companies of project No. 3 ………………..………..……..141
Table 5.7: The characteristics of construction of distribution ware houses for the ministry of social affairs .144
Table 5.8: The characteristics of the participated companies of project No.………………………………….146
Table 5.9: The characteristics of the project of case study No. 5 …………………………..……...…….…….148
Table 5.10: The characteristics of the participated companies of project No. 5 ……...…...……………..…...150
Table 5.11: Summary of cases studies information ……………………..……………………………..............153
XI
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Sequential relationships of various categories of delays…….………...……………………...…6
Figure 3.1: Methodology flowchart……………………………...…….…………..………………………33
Figure 3.2: Response rates among the three types of population……….……...…….……………………..36
Figure 4.1: Type of respondents` organization ………………………………..…....………………………50
Figure 4.2: Type of work executed by the respondents contractors…………….....……………………….51
Figure 4.3: Type of work executed by the respondents owners…………………...………………………..51
Figure 4.4: Type of work executed by the respondents consultants………………………………………..52
Figure 4.5: Respondents and designation ………………………………………...………………………..53
Figure 4.6: Location of organization .. ……………………….……………………………………………54
Figure 4.7: Cost of projects implemented by the organization (million $).………………………………55
Figure 4.8: Number of constant employees at Organization ……………..……….…................................56
XII
List of Abbreviation
CPM Critical Path Method
UNDP United Nations Development Program
PECDAR Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction
PNA Palestinian National Authority
PCU Palestinian Contractors Union
BOQ Bill Of Quantities
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science
Strikes Means strikes due to national mourning.
1
CHAPTER ONE : INTRODUCTION
1.1 Construction industry background The construction industry is the total through which physical development is achieved,
and that is truly the locomotive of the national economy. The more resources,
engineering, labor, materials, equipment, capital, and market exchange are provided from
within the national economy, the higher the factor of the extent of self reliance. The
increasing complexity of infrastructure projects and the environment within which they
are constructed place greater demand on construction managers to deliver projects on
time, within the planned budget and with high quality (Enshassi et al 2003).
Since 1993, the year when Oslo Peace Accords have been signed in Norway, Palestinian
occupied territories have undergone a rapid pace of reconstruction of infrastructure which
had been demolished through thirty years of occupation. In spite of lack of resources and
technologies, hundreds of infrastructure, residential, and governmental projects were
implemented (MAP Overview 2002).
The successful execution of construction projects and keeping them within estimated cost
and prescribed schedules depend on a methodology that requires sound engineering
judgment. To the dislike of owners, contractors and consultants, however, many projects
experience extensive delays and thereby exceed initial time and cost estimates. This
problem is more evident in the traditional or adversarial type of contracts in which the
contract is awarded to the lowest bidder- the awarding strategy of the majority of public
projects in developing countries including Gaza Strip.
Although the construction industry in the Middle East has suffered ever since the Gulf
war, recent events in the region coupled with the restructuring of economies, joining
regional and global free trade organizations, and attracting foreign investments are
expected to yield an unprecedented growth in the construction activities (Odeh and
Battaineh 2002).
Therefore, improving construction efficiency by means of cost-effectiveness and
timeliness would certainly contribute to cost savings for the country as a whole. Efforts
directed to cost and time effectiveness were associated with managing time and cost,
2
which in this study were approached via investigating time and cost overruns of
construction projects in Gaza Strip. Unlike the developed countries, Palestine does not
have a mature construction industry consisting of well-established contracting and
consulting companies. Much of the building and construction is done by the informal
sector. This consists of individuals building family shelters, water wells and the like. The
formal sector consists of public and private domestic contractors (Enshassi et al 2003).
1.2 Time and cost overruns in Gaza Strip One of the main objectives and policies of any public or private sectors dealing with the
execution of projects is to upgrade projects performance, through reduction of costs,
completion of projects within their assigned budget and time constraints, and improve
quality. Construction industry in Gaza Strip is suffering from many problems which
affect time, cost and quality, these factors related to political situation and techniques
used in Gaza Strip, these problems are summarized as following:
• Large number of workers in comparison to the number of projects ( the large number of
unemployed labour in Gaza Strip);
• Borders closure and shortage of materials in markets;
• Dependency on Israel and other countries in getting construction materials;
• Continued increase in material prices;
• Dependency on donor countries to get the fund of implemented projects in Gaza Strip;
• Unstable economic situation and its correlation with Israeli one;
• Unstable political situation.
These factors above and others contributed to large proportion in making many problems
in construction industry which usually related to time and cost overruns.
Enshassi et al (2003) found that the financing group of delay factors was ranked the
highest by all three parties and the environment group was ranked the lowest. In order to
improve the situation , there is a need to pay more attention to the financial issues in the
local construction industry, and there is a need for better communication and
coordination with international funding agencies. There is also an urgent need to develop
human resources in the construction industry in Palestine. The construction industry in
Palestine should also adopt innovative management techniques, team building and value
3
engineering in order to be more efficient and effective. A constructive team building
approach between owners, consultants and contractors will reduce delays and improve
the quality of the work.
Delay of project and cost overruns in Gaza Strip is one of most important problems at
construction management field, also research and studies in this field in Palestine are few
compared to worthy expected results. Despite the importance and the significance of the
construction sector in Palestine. It is noted that the parties of project (owner, consultant,
and contractor) don’t give the time and cost overruns the importance at the evaluation at
the end of project.
This shortage of time and cost overruns control may be as a result of;
• Lack of knowledge and awareness about project performance;
• The distribution of delay and cost overruns responsibilities between the three parties
(contractors, consultants and owners);
• They believe that the political conditions is the main reason of this problem.
The problem of projects delay and cost overruns can nearly be noticed in every project at
Gaza Strip indicating that this problem didn't receive enough attention by both researches
and responsible authorities.
1.3 Research problem Project finishing on time and absence of cost overruns are considered the most important
factors of successful projects, which help to decrease problems for all parties and give
new chances to construct another related projects. It also helps to increase the profits and
development of construction industry in Gaza Strip. Most construction projects in Gaza
Strip are exposed to delay to the extent that it may extend to the double period of time
specialized for that project, causing loss of project's profit, increasing cost and leading to
technical and managerial problems between project's parties. Cost overruns is also
considered another a big problem, which hinders project's progress, since it decreases the
contractor profit leading to huge losses leaving the project in a big trouble.
4
This problem is a result of hard political situation in Gaza Strip, reliance on Israeli
borders to get materials inside the country, weak economy, lack of managerial skills, bad
labor productivity, bad planning, increasing the prices of materials, environment, type of
project and others. For that it is of key importance to exert the utmost effort to
accomplish such study, to detect the previously mentioned factors and to treat all the
weakness points and from all sides, and so giving specific priorities in order to avoid time
and cost overruns at construction projects.
1.4 Research aim The aim of this research is to assess factors influencing time and cost overruns on
construction projects in Gaza Strip.
1.5 Research objectives 1. To identify variables influencing construction time and cost overruns and to evaluate
their relative importance.
2. Investigate the collective group perspectives on the relative significance of these
factors from owner, consultant, and contractor point view.
3. To evaluate the magnitudes of the time delay, and cost increases.
4. To evaluate the degree of agreement /disagreement regarding the ranking of these
factors.
5. To conduct several practical case studies.
6. To formulate recommendations for improving construction performance.
1.6 Limitations and Assumptions This research included the following limitations:
1. The study included the factors influencing time and cost overruns in Gaza Strip
only.
2. Literature on delay and cost overruns in Palestine is very limited.
3. The duration of research from April 2007 to Feb. 2008 lied in a very complex
political situation in Gaza Strip. Most of construction projects in Gaza Strip have
been suspended and funding from funding agencies has stopped since July 2007,
due to borders closures and continuing Israeli attacks.
5
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
One of the most important problem in the construction industry is time and cost overruns.
Time and cost overruns occur in every construction project and the magnitude of these
delays and cost overruns varies considerably from project to project. So it is essential to
define the actual causes of time and cost overruns in order to minimize and avoid the
delays and increasing cost in any construction project. This chapter reviews literature
concerning the major issues of time and cost overruns in order to recognize the related
information regard those issues.
2.1 Definition of time and cost overruns
2.1.1 Time overruns Time overruns is defined as the extension of time beyond planned completion dates
traceable to the contractors (Kaming et al 1997). Delays are incidents that impact a
project’s progress and postpone project activities, delay causing incidents may include
weather delays, unavailability of resources, design delays, etc. In general, project delays
occur as a result of project activities that have both external and internal cause and effect
relationship (Vidalis et al 2002).
Choudhry (2004) and Chan (2001), defined the time overruns as the difference between
the actual completion time and the estimated completion time. It was measured in number
of days. Project delays are those that cause the project completion date to be delayed
(Al- Gahtani and Mohan 2007). From above, time overruns is defined as the time
increased to complete the project after planed date which caused by internal and external
factors surrounded the project.
2.1.2 Cost overruns
Cost overrun is defined as excess of actual cost over budget. Cost overrun is also
sometimes called "cost escalation," "cost increase," or "budget overrun." (Zhu et al 2004).
Cost overrun is defined as the change in contract amount divided by the original contract
award amount .This calculation can be converted to a percentage for ease of comparison
(Jackson' 1990).
6
Cost overrun = Final Contract Amount – Original Contract Amount
Original Contract Amount
Choudhry (2004) defined the cost overruns as the difference between the original cost
estimate of project and actual construction cost on completion of works of a commercial
sector construction project.
2.2 Types of delay
The main types of delay have been stated by a number of researchers (Vidalis et al 2002),
Ahmed et al (2003), Alaghabri et al (2007) and Al- Gahtani and Mohan (2007). Theses
types are Excusable delay, Concurrent delay , Compensable delay, and Critical delay.
The types of delays above have internal or external impacts on project process. Internal
causes of delay include causes that come from the owner, designers, contractors, and
consultants. External causes of delays are originated from outside of construction projects
such as utility companies, government, subcontractors, suppliers, labor unions, nature,
etc. Figure 1 presents sequential relationships of various categories of delays (Vidalis et
al 2002).
Figure 2.1: Sequential relationships of various categories of delays (Vidalis et al, 2002)
Excusable Delays Non- Excusable Delays
Concurrent Non – Concurrent
Compensable Non- Compensable Critical Non-Critical
7
2.2.1 Excusable delays
Excusable delays are unforeseeable events beyond anyone’s control. They are broken
down further into compensable or non-compensable delays. If the delay is considered
compensable, then the contractor is entitled to additional financial compensation as well
as extra project time. Under certain circumstances where non-compensated excusable
delays occur, the contractor receives extra time but not extra money for the additional
completed work. Excusable delays, known as “force majeure” delays, and commonly
called “acts of God” because they are not the responsibility or fault of any particular
party. Most contracts allow for the contractor to obtain an extension of time for excusable
delays, but not additional money (Alaghbari et al 2007).
Owner-issued contracts specifically address some potential compensable delays and
provide equitable adjustments. The usual equitable adjustment clauses in owner issued
contracts that apply to delay are: Changes, differing site conditions, and suspension. The
changes clause in owner-issued contracts provides that equitable adjustments may be
considered as follows:
2.2.1.1 Changes
With the help of a written change notice, the owner may, without any notice to the
sureties (if any), unilaterally make any change, at any time in the work within the general
scope of the contract, including but not limited to changes:
• In the drawings, designs or specifications.
• In the method, manner or sequence of contractor’s work.
• In customer or owner furnished facilities, equipments, materials, services or site(s).
• Directing acceleration or de acceleration in the performance of the work.
• Modifying the contract schedule or the contract milestones.
If at any time contractor believes that acts or omissions of customer or owner constitute a
change to the work not covered by a change notice, contractor shall within ten (10)
calendar days of discovery of such act or omission, submit a written change notice
request, explaining in detail the basis for the request. Owner may either issue a change
notice or deny the request in writing. If any change under this clause causes directly or
indirectly an increase or decrease in the cost, or the time required for the performance of
8
any part of the work, whether or not changed by any order, an equitable adjustment shall
be made and the contract will be modified accordingly (Ahmed et al 2003).
The clause recognizes that changes in the work or changes in the method or manner of
performance may require changes in the schedule and schedule milestones and this could
further necessitate revisions in activity durations, sequence of work items, or
interrelationships of various tasks. These changes may have a direct impact on the
schedule, as where a change in method requires a greater or lesser period of performance
or its effects may be subtler, as where the change merely rearranges priorities. In addition
to a time extension, the contract’s clause provides compensation for any delay resulting
from a contract change by allowing an equitable adjustment for the increased cost of the
performance of the work caused by the change (Ahmed et al 2003).
2.2.1.2 Differing Site Conditions
The portion of the clause addressing cost or time adjustments for ‘differing site
conditions’ provide. If such conditions do differ in material and thus cause an
increase/decrease in the Contractor’s cost or time required for performance of the work,
an equitable adjustment will be made pursuant to the General Condition titled “Changes”.
No claim of the contractor under this clause will be allowed unless the contractor has
given the required notice. The main intention is to leave the contractor neither damaged
nor enriched because of the resultant delay ( Al-Gahtani and Mohan, 2007 ).
The differing site conditions clause must not be confused with the site conditions clause
in owner issued contracts - the so-called “Exculpatory” clause. Its intent is to disallow
any claims for delays relating to conditions at the site, which the contractor should have
anticipated. The exceptions are limited to those conditions defined in the differing site
conditions clause (Ahmed et al 2003).
2.2.2 Concurrent delays
If only one factor is delaying construction, it is usually fairly easy to calculate both the
time and money resulting from that single issue. A more complicated – but also more
typical – situation is one in which more than one factor delays the project at the same
9
time or in overlapping periods of time. These are called concurrent delays (Alaghbari et
al 2007).
Concurrent delays occur when both owner and the contractor are responsible for the
delay. Generally, if the delays are inextricably intertwined, neither the contractor can be
held responsible for the delay (forced to accelerate, or be liable for liquidated damages)
nor can he recover the delay damages from the owner. Until the development of CPM
schedule analysis, there was no reliable method to differentiate the impact of contractor
caused delays from owner-caused delays. With the sophisticated computerized techniques
now available, however, it has become possible to segregate the impacts of apparently
concurrent owner and contractor delays (Alwi et al 2002).
In analyzing a delay claim, an analysis based on a comparison of the contractor’s
approved CPM schedule with the as-built CPM schedule should be performed to
apportion proper responsibility for delay. Because the critical path may shift as the job
progresses, it is updated based upon contractually required input from the contractor.
2.2.3 Compensable delays
Compensable delays are those that are generally caused by the owner or its agents. The
most common form of compensable delay is inadequate drawings and specifications, but
compensable delays can also arise from the owner’s failure to respond in a timely fashion
to requests for information or shop drawings, owner’s changes in design or materials, and
owner’s disruption and/or change in the sequence of the work. The contractor is entitled
to both additional money and additional time resulting from compensable delays
(Alaghbari et al 2007).
In addition to the compensable delays that result from contract changes by change notice,
there are compensable delays that can arise in other ways. Such compensable delays are
excusable delays, suspensions, or interruptions to all or part of the work caused by an act
or failure to act by the owner resulting from owner’s breach of an obligation, stated or
implied, in the contract. If the delay is compensable, then the contractor is entitled not
only to an extension of time but also to an adjustment for any increase in costs caused by
the delay (Al-Gahtani and Mohan, 2007).
10
Al-Gahtani and Mohan (2007) added another type of delay that is pacing delay:
Pacing delay is deceleration of the project work, by one of the parties to the contract. This
is because of a delay to the end date of the project, caused by the other party. The goal is
to maintain steady progress with the revised project schedule.
2.2.4 Critical delays
Critical delays are delay claims that affect the progress, time, and compensation. Non-
critical delays do not affect the completion date of the project. They affect the succeeding
activities that are not on the critical path of the schedule. This can set back activities if
they do not have a float in the schedule (Abudul-Rahman et al 2006).
2.3 Delay responsibility
Ahmed et al (2003) claimed that the issue of responsibility for delay is related to whether
the contractor is awarded or is liable for costs and additional time to complete the project.
The categories of responsibilities are:
• Owner (or agent) responsible – contractor will be granted a time extension and
additional costs (indirect), where warranted;
• Contractor (or subcontractor) responsible – contractor will not be granted time or costs
and may have to pay damages/penalties;
• Neither party (e.g. “act of God”) responsible – contractor will receive additional time to
complete the project but no costs will be granted and no damages/penalties assessed; and
• Both parties responsible – contractor will receive additional time to complete the
project but no costs will be granted and no damages/penalties assessed.
2.4 Causes of time and cost overruns
2.4.1 Causes of time overruns (delay) Time overruns (delays) can be divided into three categories:
1. Those over which neither party to the contract has any control;
2. Those over which the owner (or his/her representative) has control;
3. Those over which the contractor (or any subcontractor) has control.
The predominant factors influencing time overruns/delays are design changes, poor
labour productivity, inadequate planning and resource shortages. Table 2.1 illustrates the
variables of delay and cost controls, which studied by Kaming et al (1997) in Indonesia.
11
Table 2.1 : Variables influencing time, and/or cost control in Indonesia (Kaming et al 1997)
Variables of delays and cost controls
Environment restriction
Experience of project location
Accurate prediction of equipment production rate
Equipment availability
Experience of local regulation
Weather conditions
Variables of time controls
Build ability
Labour productivity
Level of planning
Material availability
Accuracy of materials estimate
Accurate prediction of craftsmen production rate
Skilled labour availability
Locational restriction of the project
Variables of cost controls
Inflation of material cost
Accurate quantity take-off
Experience of project type
Ahmed et al (2003) studied two kinds of cause for delay in construction projects:
(1) External causes; and
(2) Internal causes.
Internal causes of delay include the causes arising from four parties involved in the
project. These parties include the owner, designers, contractors, and consultants. Other
delays, which do not arise from these four parties, are based on external causes for
example from the government, materials suppliers, or the weather.
Chan et al (1996), Ogunlana et al (1996), Kaming et al (1997), Alwi et al (1999), Ahmed
et al (2003) and Alaghbari et al (2007) mentioned the possible following factors causing
delays in construction projects: A number of researcher have categorized the factors that
causing delays in the four categories, those are:
12
(1) Contractor’s responsibility
The factors that related to contractor's responsibility are; delay in delivery of materials to
site; shortage of materials on site; construction mistakes and defective work; poor skills
and experience of labour; shortage of site labour; low productivity of labour; financial
problems; coordination problems with others; lack of subcontractor’s skills; lack of site
contractor’s staff; poor site management; and equipments and tool shortage on site.
(2) Consultant’s responsibility
The factors that related to consultant's responsibility are; absence of consultant’s site
staff; lack of experience on the part of the consultant; lack of experience on the part of
the consultant’s site staff; (managerial and supervisory personnel); delayed and slow
supervision in making decisions; incomplete documents; and slowness in giving
instructions.
(3) Owner’s responsibility
The factors that related to owner's responsibility are; lack of working knowledge;
slowness in making decisions; lack of coordination with contractors; contract
modifications (replacement and addition of new work to the project and change in
specifications); and financial problems (delayed payments, financial difficulties, and
economic problems).
(4) External factors:
The factors that related to external factors are; lack of materials on the market; lack of
equipment and tools on the market; poor weather conditions; poor site conditions
(location, ground, etc.); poor economic conditions (currency, inflation rate, etc.); changes
in laws and regulations; transportation delays; and external work due to public agencies
(roads, utilities and public services) (Alghbari et al 2007).
Chan et al (2002), Alwi et al (2002), Assaf (2006), Odeh and Battaineh (2002) and
Alghbari et al (2007) Classified factors that cause time overrun into eight groups (owner,
contractor, consultant, material, labour and equipment, contract, contractual relation ships
and external factors). Table 2.2 illustrated the factors that cause time overruns.
13
Table 2.2: Factors that influencing cause time overruns (Alwi et al, 2002)
Category
Factor Owner Finance and payments of completed work.
Owner interference. Slow decision-making by owners. Unrealistic imposed contract duration.
Contractor Subcontractors. Site management . Construction methods. Improper planning. Mistakes during construction. Inadequate contractor experience.
Consultant Contract management. Preparation and approval of drawings. Quality assurance/control. Waiting time for approval of tests and inspections.
Material Quality of material. Shortage in material.
Labor and equipment Labor supply. Labor productivity. Equipment availability and failure.
Contract Change orders. Mistakes and discrepancies in contract documents.
Contractual relationships Major disputes and negotiations. Inappropriate overall organizational structure linking Lack of communication between the parties.
External factors Weather condition Regulatory changes and building Code Problems with neighbors. Unforeseen ground conditions
Ogunlana et al (1996) examined construction delays in a fast- growing economy:
comparing Thailand with other economies. A study of the causes of delays in 12 high rise
building construction projects in Bangkok, Thailand has been made. Resource supply
problems were by far the most acute problems of the construction industry in the boom
years. Projects suffered delays because materials, especially cement, were in short
supply, technical personnel were overstretched, having to do so much so soon in their
careers.
14
Demands from construction owners for frequent changes also created design and
coordination problems for field staff. The result was that many projects were poorly
managed and exceeded time forecasts. The results of the survey have also been compared
with studies from other developing economies. Contractors working in developing
economies work under special constraints which are not as serious in developed
countries. This class of problem requires focused strategy by a national agency working
in concert with participants in the construction industry towards their solution.
Al- Khalil and Al-Ghafly (1999) assess the frequency of project delay in water and
sewage projects, the extent of the delay, and the party responsible for the delay. They
found that a large number of projects experience delay, especially in medium- and large-
size projects.
Owners and consultants assigned the major responsibility for delay to the contractor but
the contractor placed it mostly on the owner. On average, the contractor is assigned most
responsibility, but when considering that part of the responsibility of the consultant and
others may be transferable to the owner, the owner may carry the prime responsibility for
delay. It may also be argued that the contractor is not primarily responsible because of the
high rate of approval for contractors' requests for time extension.
Aibinu and Jagboro (2002), in their study of the growing problem of construction delay
in Nigeria, examined the effects of delays on the delivery of construction projects in the
country. Utilizing a questionnaire survey of 61 construction projects, the authors
identified, and assessed the impact of delays on the delivery of construction projects.
Time and cost overruns were found to be frequent effects of delay. Acceleration' of site
activities coupled with improved owners' project management procedures and the
inclusion of an appropriate contingency allowance in the pre contract estimate were
recommended as a means of minimizing the adverse effect of construction delays in
Nigeria.
Odeh and Battaineh (2002) studied the causes of construction delay at traditional
contracts in Jordan, they used questionnaire procedure in this study; the questionnaire
was distributed to a random sample of 100 contractors and 50 consultants. The study
illustrated that; according to contractors, labor productivity was the most important delay
factor. Inadequate contractor experience, however, was the most important delay factor to
15
consultants. All parties generally agreed on the ranking of the individual delay factors.
They agreed that inadequate contractor experience, owner interference, and financing of
work were among the top five most important factors. Moreover, delays caused by
subcontractors, slow decision making by owners, improper planning, and labor
productivity were among the top ten most important factors for both parties. Operational
factors such as labor productivity, construction methods, site management, and
equipment availability and failure were important to contractors than to consultants.
Ahmed et al (2003) found that the most common type of delay is excusable compensable
at 48%, followed by non-excusable delays with 44% and 8% for excusable non-
compensable delays. In most of the cases, it is found that when the contractor has the
responsibility, the type of delay respectively is non-excusable; when the responsibility is
the owner’s or the consultant’s it is an excusable compensable delay; and when the
government is responsible, the delay is considered an excusable compensable.
The consultants play a very important roll in design-related delays because as they are in
charge of the design process in conjunction with the owner of the project. On the other
hand, the government plays the most important role in code-related delays. The
contractor has the major responsibility for delays in construction-related delays. Delays
due to financial / economical causes as well as management / administrative causes share
an intermediate position of importance, just presenting one key delay – delayed
payments. These categories do not have the same negative impact on project completion
times as other factors considered in this study such as code, design and construction
related issues (Kessing; 2003).
Based on the findings of the study, the authors would like to recommend that the
buildings permit approval process be streamlined as much as possible and changes in
laws and regulations be made keeping in mind the negative impact it causes in terms of
construction project cost and time. Design related issues such as changes in drawings,
incomplete and faulty specifications and change orders have a very damaging effect on
project completion times and invariably lead to cost escalations as well. These are issues
that can be controlled with proper design process management and timely decision
making. It is a well know fact that decisions made early in the life of a project have the
most profound effect on the project’s objectives of delivering a safe, quality project
within the time and budget allocated (Ahmed et al 2003) .
16
Alghbari et al (2007) examined the factors that cause delay in construction projects in
Malaysia. The results of the analysis show that from a total of 31 variables examined,
separated into four categories by responsibility, the major factors causing delay in
construction projects are factors due to the contractor, followed by factors due to the
consultant, factors due to the owner, and finally external factors. The main finding of the
study is that the financial factor is the most influencing factor in causing delay in
construction projects in Malaysia. coordination problems are considered the second
important factor causing delay in construction projects, followed by materials problems.
Further examination of factors causing delay in construction projects in Malaysia based
on four categories – contractor, consultant, owner, and external factors – the study shows
that on the contractor’s side, financial problems are the major factor in delaying
construction projects. Poor site management and, as a consequence, construction
mistakes, delay in the delivery of materials to the site, and coordination problem were the
subsequent factors causing delay in construction projects in Malaysia. The study also
shows that the main factor on the owner’s side causing delay in construction projects is
financial problems. From the consultant’s side, the first component that seems to be the
cause of delay in construction projects is ineffective or lack of supervision, followed by
“slowness in giving instructions” and “lack of consultant’s experience” (Chan et al
2002).
2.4.2 Identifying factors that influence cost overruns Previous research has attempted discover reasons for the disparity between the tender
sum and the final account. This section identifies the factors that influence cost overruns.
Four factors were identified from the existing research findings Morris et al (1990),
Kaming et al (1997) and Chimwaso (2001). These are; design changes, inadequate
planning, unpredictable weather conditions; and fluctuations in the cost of building
materials.
To broaden the investigation it was decided to complement the above list of factors with
other factors gleaned from the final account reports. These were compared with the
factors from the existing research findings, and a final list of 18 factors was prepared.
Those were then divided into two groups of seven critical factors and nine other factors,
which are usually ignored, but perceived to be of equal significance ( Chimwaso; 2001).
17
List of critical factors
1.Incomplete design at the time of tender.
2.Additional work at owner's request.
3.Changes in owner's brief.
4.Lack of cost planning/monitoring during pre-and-post contract stages.
5.Site/poor soil conditions.
6.Adjustment of prime cost and provisional sums.
7.Re measurement of provisional works.
8.Logistics due to site location.
9.Lack of cost reports during construction stage.
List of other factors, which are usually ignored
1.Delays in issuing information to the contractor during construction in delays.
2.Technical omissions at design stage.
3.Contractual claims, such as, extension of time with cost claims.
4.Improvements to standard drawings during construction stage.
5.Indecision by the supervising team in dealing with the contractor's queries in delays.
6.Delays in costing variations and additional works.
7.Omissions and errors in the bills of quantities.
8.Ignoring items with abnormal rates during tender evaluation, especially items with
provisional quantities.
9.Some tendering maneuvers by contractors, such as front-loading of rates.
The prime variables of cost overruns have been commonly identified as: unpredictable
weather, inflationary material cost, inaccurate materials estimates, complexity of project,
contractor’s lack of geographical experience, contractor’s lack of project type experience,
and non-familiarity with local regulations (Kaming et al 1997).
Morris (1990) studied the factors influencing cost overruns in public sector projects, he
found that Escalation in costs is attributable partly to the fact that the original estimates
were prepared at the then current prices, and partly to delays which enhance the effect of
inflation and to direct escalation in costs arising out of change in scope, errors etc. Based
on certain assumptions with regard to the pace of expenditure on projects Morris have
roughly computed that for the 133 projects which were studied only about 25 to 30% of
18
the cost increase can be attributed to inflation. The remaining 70 to 75% has to be
explained in terms of delays, inefficiencies, scope changes, changes in statutory levies,
variations in exchange rates and to the combined effect of these factors with inflation.
Morris (1990) was mentioned ten factors that influencing cost overruns of construction
projects. These factors are: inadequate project preparation, planning and implementation,
delay in construction as the first cause of cost overruns. The second factor was supply of
raw materials and equipment by contractors. The third one was change in the scope of the
project. The fourth factor of cost overruns was resources constraint: funds, foreign
exchange, power; associated auxiliaries not ready. The delays in decisions making by
government, failure of specific coordinating bodies was the fifth factor. The sixth cause
was wrong /inappropriate choice of site. The seventh one was technical incompetence
and poor organizational structure. the labour unrest was the eighth one. The ninth factor
cause cost overruns was natural calamities, Indo-Pakistan war and the last one was the
lack of experience of technical consultants, inadequacy of foreign collaboration agreements,
monopoly of technology.
Kaming et al (1997) examine the factors influencing construction cost overruns on high-
rise projects in Indonesia, They found that cost overruns occur more frequently and are
thus a more severe problem than time overruns on high-rise construction in Indonesia.
The predominant factors influencing cost overruns are material cost increases due to
inflation, inaccurate materials estimating and degree of project complexity.
Chimwaso (2001) evaluated ten projects to assess their cost performance. The results
have shown that seven out of ten projects had reported cost overruns. The factors that
influence cost overruns have been identified and ranked in order of significance. These
factors have further been classified under categories according to the formal of final
account reports. By classifying them into categories, helps to deal with them effectively.
The four categories arrived at are: variations, measurement of provisional works,
contractual claims and fluctuations in the cost of labour and materials, with variations
being the most significant.
19
Frimpongs et al (2002) studied 26 factors that cause cost overruns in construction of
ground water projects in Ghana, they sent to 55 questionnaire to owners, 40 to contractors
and 30 to consultant. According to the contractors and consultants, monthly payments
difficulties from agencies was the most important cost overruns factor, while owners
ranked poor contractor management as the most important factor. Despite some
difference in viewpoint held by the three groups surveyed, there is a high degree of
agreement among them with respect to their ranking of the factors. The overall ranking
results indicates that the three groups felt that the major factors that can cause excessive
groundwater project overruns in developing countries are poor contractor management,
monthly payment difficulties from agencies, material procurement, poor technical
performances, escalation of material prices according to their degree of influence.
The amount of cost- increase (overruns), increased with an increase in the total cost of a
residential project. However, private residence owners who spent more time on the pre-
planning phase spent more money on the design phase; issued less change orders;
selected more experienced contracting companies; and hired a supervising engineer to
independently supervise the progress of work and ensure the delivery of materials –
experienced less and cost – increases during the implementation phase of their residential
projects. A major factor contributing to the sample projects' and cost- increase was the
insufficiency of money and time allocated to its design phase (Koushki et al 2005).
20
Table 2.3 illustrate the factors that influencing time overruns which collected from literature review. The factors categorized into eleven groups. Table 2.3 : Factors influencing time overruns
Country where survey was conducted Hong- Kong Thailand Indonesia Indonesia Nigeria U.S.A
(Florida) Hong Kong Jordan
Palestine(Gaza Strip)
New Zealand Malaysia Malaysia
Factors causing project delays Chan et al 1996
Ogunlana et al 1996
Kaming et al 1997
Alwi et al 1999
Elinwa et al 2001
Ahmed et al 2002
Chan et al 2002
Odeh et al 2002
Enshassi et al 2003
Ying et al 2005
Abudul-Rahman
et al 2006
Alghbari et al 2007
Contractor's responsibilities Insufficient number of staffs * Spend some time to find sub-contractors company who is appropriate for each task
*
Often changing Sub-contractors Company * Harvest time * low productivity of labour * * * * * Lack of subcontractor's skills * * * * * * Lack of subcontractor's staff * Poor site management * * * * * * Equipments and tool shortage on site * * * * Lack of trades skill * Poor distribution of labour * Mistakes during construction * * Inadequate contractor experience * * Deficiencies in organization * Deficiencies in coordination between parties- (Contractor, Consultant and Owner)
*
*
*
*
*
Uncompromising attitude between parties * * Equipment allocation problems *
21
Table 2.3 : Factors influencing time overruns (cont.)
Country where survey was conducted
Hong- Kong Thailand Indonesia Indonesia Nigeria U.S.A
(Florida) Hong Kong Jordan
Palestine(Gaza Strip)
New Zealand Malaysia Malaysia
Factors causing Project delays Chan et al 1996
Ogunlana et al 1996
Kaming et al 1997
Alwi et al 1999
Elinwa et al 2001
Ahmed et al 2002
Chan et al 2002
Odeh et al 2002
Enshassi et al 2003
Ying et al 2005
Abudul-Rahman
et al 2006
Alghbari et al 2007
Contractor's responsibilities Lack of protection of complete work * Failure in testing * Human error * * Poor communications and misunderstanding * * * * Consultant's responsibilitiesAbsence of consultant's site staff * Lack of experience on the part of the consultant * Lack of experience on the part of the consultant's site- staff; (managerial and supervisory personnel)
*
*
Slowness in giving instructions * Too few supervisors / skill * Contract management by Consultant * Preparation and approval of tests and inspections * * Quality assurance / control * Waiting time for approval of tests and inspections * * * * Poor inspection * Delays in payment * * Conflict in amount of payments * Variations (design changes/ extra work) * * * * * * * *
22
Table 2.3 : Factors influencing time overruns (cont.)
Country where survey was conducted Hong- Kong Thailand Indonesia Indonesia Nigeria U.S.A
(Florida) Hong Kong Jordan
Palestine(Gaza Strip)
New Zealand Malaysia Malaysia
Factors causing Project delays Chan et al 1996
Ogunlana et al 1996
Kaming et al 1997
Alwi et al 1999
Elinwa et al 2001
Ahmed et al 2002
Chan et al 2002
Odeh et al 2002
Enshassi et al 2003
Ying et al 2005
Abudul-Rahman
et al 2006
Alghbari et al 2007
Owner's responsibilitiesContract modifications (replacement and addition of - new work to the project and change in specifications) * * Financial problems (delayed payments financial- difficulties and economic problems)
*
*
*
*
*
*
Owner - initiated variation * Unrealistic contract durations imposed by owner * * Owner interference * * Owner has no priority/ urgency to complete the project * Professional Management Poor provision of information to project participants * * * Inadequate managerial skills for all parties * Low speed of decision making within each project team * * * * * * * Inadequate construction planning * * * * * * * * Preparation and approval of shop drawings * Lack of tracking of schedules * Lack of personnel training and management support * Poor judgment in estimating time and resources * Lack of contractor's home office follows up * Inspection and testing procedure used in project *
23
Table 2.3: Factors influencing time overruns (cont.)
Country where survey was conducted Hong- Kong Thailand Indonesia Indonesia Nigeria U.S.A
(Florida) Hong Kong Jordan
Palestine(Gaza strip)
New Zealand Malaysia Malaysia
Factors causing Project delays Chan et al 1996
Ogunlana et al 1996
Kaming et al 1997
Alwi et al 1999
Elinwa et al 2001
Ahmed et al 2002
Chan et al 2002
Odeh et al 2002
Enshassi et al 2003
Ying et al 2005
Abudul-Rahman
et al 2006
Alghbari et al 2007
Professional Management Rework of bad quality performance * Design and DocumentationPoor quality site documentation * Unclear specifications * Poor design * * * Incomplete drawings * * Poor documentation and no detailed written procedures * * Using systematic procedures * Delays in design work / lack of design information * Lack of designer's experience * Material Delay of material delivery to site * * * * * * * Poor material handling on site * * Inappropriate / misuse material * * Poor procurement programming of materials * Shortage of materials in markets * * * Shortage of construction materials * * * Low quality of materials * * Too much overtime for labour *
24
Table 2.3 : Factors influencing time overruns (cont.)
Country where survey was conducted Hong- Kong Thailand Indonesia Indonesia Nigeria U.S.A
(Florida) Hong Kong Jordan
Palestine(Gaza Strip)
New Zealand Malaysia Malaysia
Factors causing Project delays Chan et al 1996
Ogunlana et al 1996
Kaming et al 1997
Alwi et al 1999
Elinwa et al 2001
Ahmed et al 2002
Chan et al 2002
Odeh et al 2002
Enshassi et al 2003
Ying et al 2005
Abudul-Rahman
et al 2006
Alghbari et al 2007
Material Inappropriate construction methods * * Poor equipment choice/ infective equipment * Highly bureaucratic organization * Project construction complexity * Execution Price escalation * Lack of a strong organizational culture * Labor supply * Equipment availability and failure * * * Shortage of site workers * * * Inaccurate prediction of equipment production rate * * Skilled labor shortage * * * * * Lack of equipment * * * lack of maintenance for the equipment * * * Weak motivation * Low productivity * Unskilled operators * Contractual relationshipsMajor disputes and negotiations *
25
Table 2.3 : Factors influencing time overruns (cont.)
Country where survey was conducted Hong- Kong Thailand Indonesia Indonesia Nigeria U.S.A
(Florida) Hong Kong Jordan
Palestine(Gaza Strip)
New Zealand Malaysia Malaysia
Factors causing Project delays Chan et al 1996
Ogunlana et al 1996
Kaming et al 1997
Alwi et al 1999
Elinwa et al 2001
Ahmed et al 2002
Chan et al 2002
Odeh et al 2002
Enshassi et al 2003
Ying et al 2005
Abudul-Rahman
et al 2006
Alghbari et al 2007
Contractual relationshipsInappropriate overall organizational structure linking- all parties to the project
*
Mistakes and discrepancies in contract documents * Inappropriate type of contract used * Government relations Building Regulations * Bureaucracy in Government agencies * Slow permits by Govt. agencies * External factors Poor site conditions (location, ground, etc.) * * * * * * * * Poor economic conditions (currency, inflation rate, etc.) * * Changes in laws and regulations * Transportation delays * External work due to public agencies * Problems with neighbors * Strikes, Israeli attacks and border closures * Hot and cold weather * * * *
26
Table 2.4 illustrate the factors of cost overruns which collected from literature review Table 2.4 : Factors influencing cost overruns
Country where survey was conducted India Indonesia Botswana
Factors causing Project delays
Morris
et al 1990
Kaming
et al 1997
Chimwaso
2001
Design changes * Inadequate planning * Unpredictable weather conditions * * Fluctuations in the cost of building materials * Lack of coordination at design phase * Inadequate review * Incomplete design at the time of tender * Additional work at owner’s request * Changes in owner’s brief * Lack of cost planning/monitoring during pre-and post contract stages
*
Site/poor soil conditions * Adjustment of prime cost and provisional sums * Remeasurement of provisional works * Logistics due to site location * Lack of cost reports during construction stage * Delays in issuing information to the contractor during construction stage *
Technical omissions at design stage * Contractual claims, such as, extension of time with cost claims
*
Improvements to standard drawings during construction stage
*
Indecision by the supervising team in dealing with the contractor’s queries resulting in delays
*
Omissions and errors in the bills of quantities * Delays in costing variations and additional works * Ignoring items with abnormal rates during tender evaluation, especially items with provisional quantities * Some tendering maneuvers by contractors, such as front- loading of rates
*
Materials cost increased * Labour cost increased due to environment restriction * Lack of experience of project location * Lack of experience of project type * Lack of experience of local regulation * Inadequate project preparation, planning and implementation * Delay in construction, supply of raw Materials and equipment by contractors *
27
Table 2.4 : Factors influencing cost overruns (cont.)
Country where survey was conducted India Indonesia Botswana
Factors causing Project delays
Morris
et al 1990
Kaming
et al 1997
Chimwaso
2001
Resources constraint: funds foreign, exchange power, and associated auxiliaries not ready
*
Delays in decisions making by Government, failure of specific coordinating
*
Wrong / inappropriate choice of site * Technical incompetence, poor organizational structure, and failures of the enterprise other than (1) above
*
Labour unrest * Natural calamities, Indo-Pakistan War * Lack of experience of technical consultants, inadequacy of foreign collaboration agreements, monopoly of technology
*
2.5 Delay mitigation in the construction industry An analysis is needed to identify the impact of delay on time and cost followed by
taking the appropriate action to mitigate delay and minimize the cost required. It is
important to improve the estimated activity duration according to the actual skill
levels, unexpected events, efficiency of work time, and mistakes and
misunderstandings. Mitigation efforts are necessary to minimize losses and this can be
achieved by many procedures such as protection of uncompleted work, timely and
reasonable re-procurement, and timely changing or cancellation of purchase orders. It
is important to predict and identify the problems in the early stages of construction
and diagnose the cause to find and implement the most appropriate and economical
solutions (Abdul-Rahman et al 2006). It was indicated from the survey findings derived from different levels of management
that the major causes of delay are due to financial problems followed by manpower
shortage and changes in the project requirements. All parties involved in the project
also agreed that delay occurs mostly during the construction phase. Therefore, in
resolving those problems, the units of analysis suggested to increase the construction
productivity, followed by increase the expertise and skill of human resources, and
conducted site meetings more frequently. A strategic view of solving delay problems
should consider the importance of the management aspects, the effects of knowledge
28
and information flow between the organization levels, and the importance of top
management contribution in solving the problems.
2.6 Time variance for building projects Time variance (Tv) is the time between the scheduled contract time and the
completion time in undertaking building projects.
2.6.1 Discussion on the major causes contributing to time variance The consequences of construction time delay when undertaking a public sector
building project affects all project parties, with issues such as extra cost. Although
various methods for mitigating the problem have been developed in the previous
studies, the limitation of using these methods raises the concern that probably the
causes contributing to the time variance has not been adequately addressed. To
investigate the causes, five interview workshops were arranged with relevant
personnel in the public sectors. These discussions led to the identification of the
following major categories of causes of time overruns (Wang et al 2003).
2.6.1.1 Policy-related Causes Essentially, public sector projects are sponsored or endorsed by the government. The
implementation of this type of project must be in line with governmental policy. On
the other hand, governmental policy has to incorporate multiple dimensional interests,
in particular, the public interests. These interests are multiple, dynamic and
complicated, and in order to satisfy these interests, changes in policy are unavoidable.
A typical example is the existence of many prolonged office building projects in a
number of cities in China, mainly due to the change of governmental financing policy
in late 1990.
The government either postponed or reduced the financial commitments to many
building projects in an attempt to depress the ‘over-heated’ construction market. As a
result, many projects were delayed. New policies are often introduced in the middle of
a project’s construction process, for example, additional safety measures, or new
quality monitoring systems. The implementation of new policies will normally
involve investment from the project parties. The process of identifying who should
29
take what responsibility in order to implement these policies can substantially delay
project progress (Moungrous et al 2003).
2.6.1.2 Owner-related Causes A public sector project generally involves more changes, thus inducing delays in the
process of implementing the project. The public sector owner in general, is less active
in pushing project progress when compared with a private sector owner. There is a
lack of skill in controlling construction programming.
The bureaucracy exists in all procedures that a public sector project has to go through,
which further induces progress delay. A public sector owner has to work with many
governmental departments when changes to a project occur. He has to spend a
substantial amount of time communicating with many other governmental
departments, which again induces project delays (Wang et al 2003).
2. 6.1.3 Design-related Causes The discussion shows that insufficient or incorrect design data is a major reason
contributing to project delays. The problem happens because of the owner’s poor
briefing, insufficient time allowed for design, the architect’s poor skill and the
owner’s quests for changes during the construction process (Vidalis et al 2002).
2.6.1.4 Contractor-related Causes There are many ways in which a contractor’s performance can delay a construction
project. For typical examples, main contractors often have various disputes with
subcontractors and materials suppliers, which can cause major delays. In fact, such
disputes are considered a major cause for project delay. Other factors, such as the
contractor’s insufficient financial resources, mistakes in making decisions on progress
control and the overall inability when performing management functions, are also
possible reasons for causing project delays.
It is interesting to note that, a main contractor will sometimes deliberately demand an
unreasonably short contract period although the contractor understands that the
completion on contract time is impossible. In this situation, the contractor only wants
30
to secure a contract and thus agrees with an unrealistic contract period imposed by a
project owner. Consequently, project delay cannot be avoided (Takim et al 2004).
2.6.1.5 Consultant-related Causes The consultant engaged in a building project can affect the progress of construction
programming through various monitoring measures such as issuing certificates, and
endorsing the satisfaction of certain activities in the construction process. Progress
delay can happen if these monitoring measures are not implemented properly. This
appears a typical problem in the mainland of China where a professional called the
‘supervision engineer’ is adopted for supervising construction performance,
particularly in committing public sector projects. Supervision engineers are given the
authority to endorse the satisfaction of certain procedures such as piling, steel fixing,
the quality of key materials, before the construction programming can proceed
forward. It has been found that supervision engineers often cannot endorse these
procedures in time, thus construction delays are caused (Wang et al 2003).
2.7 Time and cost overruns in Gaza Strip Delay of project and cost overruns in Gaza strip is one of most important problems at
construction management field. Also research and studies in this field in Palestine are
few compared to worthy expected results. Despite the importance and the significant
of the construction sector in Palestine, it is noted that the parties of project {owner,
consultant, and contractor} don’t give it its importance evaluate the time and cost
overruns at the end of project.
This shortage may be as a result of;
• Lack of knowledge and awareness about project performance;
• The distribution of delay and cost overruns responsibilities between the three
parties;
• They believe that the political conditions is the main reason of this problem.
The problem of projects delay and cost overruns can nearly be noticed in every
project at Gaza Strip indicating that this problem didn't receive enough attention by
both researches and responsible authorities, in this thesis factors influencing time and
cost overruns included in literature review and others will be studied in Gaza Strip.
31
Construction industry in Gaza Strip is suffering from many problems which affect
time, cost and quality, these factors related to political situation and techniques used
in Gaza strip, these problems are summarized as following:
• Unemployment of workers in comparison with the number of projects;
• Borders closure and shortage of materials in markets;
• Dependency on Israeli and other countries in getting construction materials;
• Continues increase in material prices;
• Dependency on donors countries to get cash for construction and infrastructure
projects;
• Unstable economic situation and its correlation with Israeli one;
• Hard political situation in Gaza Strip.
These factors above and others contributed to large proportion in making many
problems in construction industry which usually related to time and cost overrun.
Enshassi et al 2003 found that the financing group of delay factors was ranked the
highest by all three parties and the environment group was ranked the lowest. In order
to improve the situation , there is a need to pay more attention to the financial issues
in the local construction industry, and there is a need for betters communication and
coordination with international funding agencies. There is also an urgent need to
develop human resources in the construction industry in Palestine. The construction
industry in Palestine should also adopt innovative management techniques, team
building and value engineering in orders to be more efficient and effective. A
constructive team building approach between owners, consultants and contractors will
reduce delays and improve the quality of the work.
32
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the methodology of this thesis, the main topics included in this
chapter are research strategy, research design, population, sample size determination,
research location, case study, questionnaire design, questionnaire content, pilot study
and tests of reliability and validity of questionnaire and the last thing is the process of
data analysis.
3.2 Research strategy
Naoum (1998) defined the research strategy as the way in which the research
objectives can be questioned. Two types of research strategies are used at studies,
quantitative and qualitative research. Quantitative approach is used to gather factual
data and to study relationships between facts and how such facts and relationships
accord with theories and the findings of any research executed previously, but the
qualitative approach seek to gain insights and to understand people's perception of
"the world" whether as individuals or groups (Fellows and Liu, 1997). In this thesis, a
quantitative approach is used to understand the perception of construction
professionals in Gaza Strip towards factors influencing time and cost overruns at
construction projects in Gaza Strip.
3.3 Research design
"Research design" refers to the plan or organization of scientific investigation,
designing of a research study involves the development of a plan or strategy that will
guide the collection and analyses of data (Poilt and Hungler, 1985). This research
consists of seven phases, the first one is the proposal for identifying and defining the
problems and establishment of the objectives of the study and development of
research plan. The second phase of the research includes literature review. Literatures
of time and cost overruns were reviewed.
The third phase of the research included a field survey which included the firm of
owners, contractors and consultants, also some actual cases were collected during the
field survey. The fourth phase of the research includes the questionnaire design,
33
through distributing the questionnaire to a sample of local contractors, consultants and
owners' firms. The purpose of the pilot study was to test and prove that the
questionnaire questions are clear to be answered in a way that help to achieve the
target of the study. The questionnaire was modified based on the results of the pilot
study.
The fifth phase of the research was questionnaire distribution. The questionnaire was
used to collect the required data in order to achieve the research objective. The sixth
phase of the research focused data analysis and discussion. Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences, (SPSS) was used to perform the required analysis. The last phase of
the research includes the conclusions and recommendations.
Figure 3.1 illustrated the methodology flow chart which includes the objectives of the
thesis.
Topic Selection
Literature Review
Define the Problem
Establish Objectives
Develop Research Plan
Conducting survey
Questionnaires Design
Results and Data Analysis
Conclusion & Recommendation
Figure 3.1: Methodology flowchart
Field Surveying
Thesis Proposal
Literature Review
Cases studies
Piloting (ten experts were
invited )
Questionnaires Validity
Questionnaires Reliability
34
3.4 Population The population of this research included contracting companies, consultants and
public owners sectors, the contractors companies had valid registration according to
the Palestinian Contractors Union (P.C.U) records. The P.C.U in Gaza Strip divided
the contracting companies into five major categories depending on their size, capitals,
executed projects, equipment values, and qualifications of the technical staff as per
the Union of Contractors in the Gaza Strip, where class 1 designates the largest
contractors and class 5 designates the smallest. Class 5 of these categories was
neglected because they didn't execute projects of more than 100,000 $ and also most
of them are very new companies and didn't have sufficient experience in construction
field.
The studied population was the contracting companies that have a valid registration in
the PCU in the following fields: building, roads, water and sewage, electro-mechanics
and public works. The owner agencies consist of all government agencies, ministries,
municipalities, international agencies, public project owners. The consultant agencies
consist of all consulting offices that have a valid membership of consulting offices in
Gaza Strip.
3.5 Sample Size Determination Wood and Haber (1998) defined the sampling as the process of selecting
representative units of a population for the study in research investigation. A sample
is a small proportion of a population selected for observation and analysis. The
samples were selected randomly from contracting companies, consultant offices &
public owners sectors.
Statistical equations were used in order to calculate the sample size for the
contractors. Equation 3.1 was used to determine the sample size of the unlimited
population (Creative Research System, 2001, www.cdb.riken.jp):
SS = 2
2
CP)(1*P*Z − Equation 3.1
Where SS = Sample size
Z = Z value ( e.g. 1.96 for 95% confidence level)
35
P = percentage picking a choice, expressed as a decimal (0.50 used for sample size
needed).
C = margin of error (9%)
SS = 11957.1180.09
)5.0(1 0.5 1.962
2
≈=−×× contractors
Correction for Finite Population
SS new
POP1-SS 1
SS
+= Equation 3.2
Where pop is the population = 139 match the proposed classes of contracting
companies
SS new 6436.64
13919111
119≈=
−+
=
The total number distributed to contractors was 80 questionnaires.
The total number returned was 66 questionnaires.
POP (consultants) = 35
SS new for consultants 2722.27
3519111
119≈=
−+
=
The total number distributed was 33 questionnaires.
The total number returned was 27 questionnaires.
POP (owners) = 40
SS new for owners 301.30
4019111
119≈=
−+
=
The total number distributed was 38 questionnaires.
The total number returned was 31 questionnaires.
36
Figure 3.2 shows that the contractor response rate is 82.5 %, which reflect the
importance and the effect of delay on contractor, because the contractor is the first
aggrieved from time and cost overruns at the project. The consultant response rate
was 81.80 %, this response rate is also high, because of consultant attention to avoid
time and cost overruns, the consultant take care of its CV at projects. Owner (owner)
response rate was 81.58 %, this is a good rate, specially when know that any delay in
project handing over or increasing of cost prevent the owner to use the project.
Figure 3.2: Response rates among the three types of population.
3.6 Research Location
Gaza Strip is the location of this study, the participated organization of questionnaire
was as following:
• 10 contractors from the North of Gaza, 33 from Gaza, 6 from Middle area and 17
from the South of Gaza Strip .
• 8 owners from the North of Gaza, 13 from Gaza, 4 from Middle area and 6 from
the South of Gaza Strip .
• 6 consultants from the North of Gaza, 13 from Gaza, 3 from Middle area and 5
from the South of Gaza Strip .
37
3.7 Methodology used in previous studies Frimpong et al (2003) discussed causes of delay and cost overruns in construction of a
ground water project in developing countries (Ghana as a case study). A questionnaire
of 26 factors was carefully designed from previous preliminary investigations
conducted in groundwater drilling projects between 1970 and 1999 in Ghana. It was
organized in the from of a priority scaling (1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = medium, 4 =
high, and 5 = very high).
The procedure used in analyzing the results aimed at establishing the relative
importance of the various factors responsible for project delay and cost overruns. The
score for each factor is calculated by summing up scores assigned to it by
respondents. Therefore, the level of importance as indicated by the owners,
contractors and consultants were used to measure the relative weight of each factor.
The relative weight was computed using the following equation:
Relative Importance Weight
∑5 ai-ni i=1
(RIW) = ---------------------- x 100 ∑N xj j=1
Where xj = the sum of the jth factors 1,2,3,4 --------- N;N= total number of factors
(26); ai = constant expressing the weight given to the jth response: i=1,2,3,4,5
for a response of 'very high' a1 = 5
for a response of ' high' a2 = 4
for a response of 'medium' a3= 3
for a response of 'low' a4 = 2
for a response of 'very low' a5 = 1
ni = the variable expressing the frequency of the ith response.
n1= frequency of 'very high' response, =frequency of 'high' response
n3 = frequency of 'medium' response.
n4 = frequency of 'low' response.
n5 = frequency of 'very low' response
38
Koushki et al (2005) discussed delays and cost increases in the construction of private
residential projects in Kuwait by considering a questionnaire survey approach. A total
of 450 private housing projects were systematic-randomly selected from among
projects located in 27 metropolitan districts. The sample districts were selected to
represent the various geographical, land-use, population density and socioeconomic
distributions of households in Kuwait. A person-interview survey of owners of these
sample residential projects by a trained Kuwaiti team consisting of one graduate and
two senior civil engineering students provided the database for the analysis.
Ogunsemi and Jagboro (2006) used model approach to study time-cost model for
building projects in Nigeria. Time and cost data were obtained from 87 completed
building projects. Specifically, the initial and final cost and duration of such projects
were obtained from consulting quantity surveyors. The data were limited to projects
completed within a ten-year period from 1991 to 2000.
A questionnaire approach was used by Fong et al (2006) to study the fire services
installation related contributors of construction delays. A five- point weighing scale w
was used to indicate the relative importance of a contributor i in a construction delay,
where "5" represented "extremely significant", "4" "very significant"; "3" "moderately
significant" (1). A factor rated "4" or "5" would be interpreted as a significant
contributor of construction delay, the one rated "1" or "2" would be interpreted as an
in significant contributor, while that with a "3" was taken as uncertain. The relative
importance index (RII) used to indicate the relative importance of a contributing
factor i to the construction delay is given by (3-5,8),
∑ wi RIIi = --------- A x N'
Where W is the mentioned scale for rating a factor by the respondents which ranges
from 1 to 5; A is the highest weight in the scale; and N is the total number of
respondents.
A set of questionnaires was formulated by Lo et al (2006) in which the causes of
delay and the corresponding mitigation measures were grouped into seven categories,
accordingly designated with code names. The questionnaire contained 30 identified
39
causes of delay for which the respondents were asked to indicate their perceived
magnitude of significance in part I and the effectiveness of the corresponding
mitigation measures in part II with reference to a corresponding 1-5 scale (0 = not
significant / effective (NS/NE), 1 = slightly significant / effective (SS/SE), 2=
moderately significant / effective (MS/ME), 3 = highly significant / effective
(HS/HE), and 4 = extremely significant / effective (ES/EE). The following equation
was proposed to calculate the mean score (MS) for each cause of delay.
∑ (f x S) MSi = -------- N
Where S = score given to each cause of delay by the respondents; F = frequency of
responses to each score for each cause of delay; N = total number of responses in the
respective cause of delay.
Assaf and AL-Hejji (2006) studied the causes of delay in large construction projects
in Saudi Arabia. 4. Research methodology. The research methodology contained:
Seventy-three (73) causes of delay were identified through literature review and
discussion with some parties involved in construction industry. A questionnaire was
developed in order to evaluate the frequency of occurrence, severity and importance
of the identified causes. Data were gathered through a survey, analyzed by using
frequency, severity and importance indices, taking in view owners, contractors and
consultants.
The collected data were analyzed through the following statistical techniques and
indices:
Frequency index: A formula is used to rank causes of delay based on frequency of
occurrence as identified by the participants
Frequency Index (F.I.) (% ) = ∑ a (n/N) x 100/4
Where A is the constant expressing weighting given to each response (ranges from 1
for rarely up to 4 for always), n is the frequency of the responses, and N is total
number of responses. Severity index: A formula is used to rank causes of delay.
40
Based on severity as indicated by the participants.
Severity Index (S.I.) (%) = ∑ a (n/N) x 100/4
Where a is the constant expressing weighting given to each response n in the range
from 1 for little up to 4 for severe. And N is the total number of response frequency
Importance index: The importance index of each cause is calculated as a function of
both frequency and severity indices, as follows:
Importance index: (IMP.I) (%) = (F.I (%) x S.I (%) )/100
Sambasivan and Soon (2007) used a questionnaire approach to study the causes and
effects of delays in Malaysia construction industry. A questionnaire was developed to
assess the perceptions of owners, consultants, and contractors on the relative
importance of causes and effects of delay in Malaysian construction industry. The
respondents were asked to highlight their recommendation to minimize the effects of
construction delays through an open-ended question. A five-point Likert scale ranging
from 1( not important) to 5(extremely important) was adopted to capture the
importance of causes and effects of delays.
The five-point scale ranged from 1(not important) to 5(extremely important) was
adopted and transformed to relative importance indices (RII) for each factor as
follows:
∑ w RII = -------------
A x N
Alghbari et al (2007) studied the significant factors causing delay of building
construction projects in Malaysia by using questionnaire approach. The respondents
identified variables that they perceived as being likely to contribute to factors
influencing the speed of IBS and factors influencing delays in construction building
projects by responding on a scale from 1 (very important) to 4 (unimportant). The
four-point Likert rating scale was 1 ¼ very important, 2 ¼ important, 3 ¼ some or
less important, and 4 ¼ unimportant. This scale was chosen to avoid neutral answers
that do not provide information on very important or non-important issues. The mean
score (MS) for each factor was calculated using the following formula:
41
∑( F x S)
MS= (4 - ----------------- ) (1 <= MS <= 4) N
Where MS is the mean score, f is the frequency of responses to each rating (1-4), s is
the score given to each factor by the respondents (ranges from 1 to 4), and N is the
number of responses concerning that factor.
3.8 Methodology of this thesis After surveying the previous approaches of methodologies, the suitable one is to use
questionnaire and case studies methods.
3.8.1 Questionnaire approach A questionnaire was developed to asses the perceptions of owners, consultants, and
contractors due to the importance index of causes and effects of delay in Gaza Strip
construction industry. Factors influencing time and cost overruns in construction
projects in Gaza Strip were first examined and identified through a relevant literature
review and by conducting a pilot study that sought advise from experienced
construction practitioners.
3.8.2 Case Studies Five case studies were carefully selected and investigated. These cases discussed in-
depth information regarding the causes of time and cost overruns at construction
projects in Gaza Strip, also to check the procedures and actions taken by contractors,
owners and consultants. Each case will be analyzed separating of others, the case will
illustrate the link between the data collected by questionnaire and data in case,
recommendations will be documented for each case.
3.9 Questionnaire design Reference to Tables 2.3 and 2.4 at literature review it has been assembled around of
(136) factors which affect the time and cost overruns in engineering projects in
various countries around the world and at intervals of time, but not all of these factors
are consistent with the conditions and circumstances surrounding the Gaza Strip from
economic level, the type of projects, geographical region and occupation factors
which experienced the Gaza Strip, so it has been selected factors commensurate with
42
the nature of construction projects and problems in the Gaza Strip. Modifications and
new questions then added as a result of interview of experienced construction
managers to suit the local construction industry in Gaza Strip.
3.9.1 Factors added from the researcher experience Table 3.1 shows the factors influencing time and cost overruns, which added from the
researcher experience.
Table 3.1 : Factors of time and cost overruns added by researcher experience
#
The factor
Groups of factors
1 Inflexibility of donor in giving appropriate
periods for project implementation Project – related factors
2 Low harmony between technical team of contractor and consultant which may lead to controversy between both of them
Contractor's responsibility
3 Unethical behaviors used by contractors to achieve the highest possible level of profit
Contractor's responsibility
4 Contractor uncommitment to consultant instructions
Contractor's responsibility
5 Dependence on a newly – graduated engineer to bear the whole responsibilities in the site
Contractor's responsibility
6 Use of unemployment programs in projects Contractor's responsibility
7 Bad past history and reputation of the consultant (corruption)
Consultant responsibility
8 Lack of job security for the consultancy team Consultant responsibility
9 Owner delay in freeing the contractor financial payments
Owner's responsibility
10 Bad Preparation and approval of shop drawings Professional Management
11 Ageing of site workers
Labor and equipment
12 Different political and factional affiliation of workers
Labor and equipment
13 Absence of managerial programs that help in saving materials inside the site
Cost overruns
14 Delay in project's handing over Cost overruns
15 Long period of the project maintenance period "one year"
Cost overruns
16 Increment of material prices due to continuous border closures
Cost overruns
43
Table 3.1 : Factors of time and cost overruns added by researcher experience (cont.)
#
The factor
Groups of factors
17 Bad allocation of workers inside the site Cost overruns
18 Over time work hours of supervising Engineer are paid by the contractor Cost overruns
19 Unsettlement of the local currency in relation to dollar value Cost overruns
20 Project materials monopoly by some suppliers Cost overruns
21 Attracting skillful technicians for work Cost overruns
22 Inability of the contractor to be adopted properly with the projects environmental Cost overruns
The draft questionnaire was discussed with the supervisor of the thesis. Then the
questionnaire was sent to a statistical expert and ten experts in constructions who
were asked to review the questionnaire and give their recommendations. The final
questionnaire contains 110 factors influencing time overruns, and 42 factors
influencing cost overruns. The respondents were asked to fill the questionnaire and
they have assured that the information will be confidential and only for research
purpose.
3.10 Questionnaire content
The questionnaire included three parts that related to the factors of time and cost
overruns at construction projects in Gaza Strip, these parts are organization profile,
factors influencing time overruns and factors influencing cost overruns.
3.10.1 Organization profile Seven items questions were prepared asking for information about organization such
as the name of organization, type of work, the contact person and his/her experience,
location of organization, the average value of executed projects per year, and the
44
constant number of workers at organization. (The questionnaire is included in annex
2)
3.10.2 Factors influencing time overruns at construction project This part of questionnaire consist of 12 groups related to time overruns, the groups
included 110 factors that influencing time overruns, these groups are project related
factors, Contractor's responsibility ,Owner responsibility, Professional management,
Design and Documentation, Materials, Execution, Labour and equipments,
Contractual relationship, Government relations and external factors. (The
questionnaire is included in annex 2).
3.10.3 Factors influencing cost overruns This part illustrate the factors influencing cost overruns at construction project, these
factors are the harvest of previous studies, own experience and piloting study. 42
factors were included in this part. (The questionnaire is included in annex 2).
3.11 Pilot study
These structured questionnaires should be based on a carefully prepared set of
questions piloted and refined until the researcher is convinced of their validity.
Therefore the pre-testing is an important stage in the questionnaire design process,
prior to finalizing the questionnaire. It involves administrating the questionnaire to a
limited number of potential respondents and other knowledgeable individuals in order
to identify and correct design flaws.
The Arabic version of questionnaire was tested in order to make sure that the
questions were easily understood .The test was made by distributing ten drafts of the
questionnaire (four to contractors, three to consultant and three to owners). In general,
they agreed that the questionnaire is suitable to achieve the goals of the study. The
following comments and some modifications have been done:
45
3.11.1 Notes of Part A (organization profile)
Adding cells to classify the type of work for organization as follows: Buildings Roads Water and Sewage Electro mechanics Adding cells for the contact person as follows:
Owner of organization Project manager Site Engineer Office Engineer Classify the location of the organization as follows: North of Gaza Gaza Middle area South of Gaza
3.11.2 Notes of part B (Factors influencing time overruns) Adding the following factors which influencing time overruns. Table 3.2 shows the
notes of part (B) of questionnaire (factors influencing time overruns).
Table 3.2 : Notes of part B of the questionnaire
3.11.3 Notes of part C (Factors influencing cost overruns)
Adding the following factors which influencing cost overruns. Table 3.3 shows that
the notes of part (C) of questionnaire (factors influencing cost overruns).
# The factor Groups of factors
1 Discrepancies between contract documents Project
2 Inconsistency between the project and its environmental due to donor agenda
Project
3 Donor own policy in implementation methods and characteristics of the project
Project
4 Delay of materials approval by consultant Consultant 5 Little periodical sessions to address work problems Consultant
6 Previous disputes between contractor and consultant Consultant
7 Centralization of decision making process from consultant party Consultant 8 Lack of unified system for contracts, general conditions, and
specifications of projects Owner
9 Back of follow up for the project schedule and absence of continuous tracking
Professional management
10 No adherence to materials standards that is storage in the site Material
46
Table 3.3 : Notes of part C of the questionnaire
#
The factor
Groups of factors
1 Low communication of donors to compensate any
bad result that may come from the economic political situation
Cost overruns
2 Donor policy in bidding tender to the lowest price one Cost overruns
3.12 Data Measurement
In order to be able to select the appropriate method of analysis, the level of
measurement must be understood. For each type of measurement, there is/are an
appropriate method/s that can be applied and not others. In this research, ordinal
scales were used. Ordinal scale is a ranking or a rating data that normally uses
integers in ascending or descending order. The numbers assigned to the agreement or
degree of influence (0,1,2,3,4) do not indicate that the interval between scales are
equal, nor do they indicate absolute quantities. They are merely numerical labels.
Based on Likert scale researcher has the following:
Item
Strongly
agree
Agree Neutral Disagree
Strongly
disagree
Scale
4
3
2
1
0
3.13 Statistical Validity of the Questionnaire
Validity refers to the degree to which an instrument measures what it is supposed to
be measuring Poilt and Hungler (1985). Validity has a number of different aspects and
assessment approaches. To insure the validity of the questionnaire, two statistical tests
should be applied. The first test is Criterion-related validity test (Spearman test)
which measure the correlation coefficient between each paragraph in one field and the
whole field. The second test is structure validity test (Spearman test) that used to test
the validity of the questionnaire structure by testing the validity of each field and the
47
validity of the whole questionnaire. It measures the correlation coefficient between
one filed and all the fields of the questionnaire that have the same level of similar
scale.
3.13.1 Criterion Related Validity
Internal consistency of the questionnaire is measured by a scouting sample, which
consisted of ten questionnaires through measuring the correlation coefficients
between each paragraph in one field and the whole filed. The results of validity test of
all categories of questionnaire are shown in tables (3.4 to 3.16) in annex.
3.13.2 Structure Validity of the Questionnaire Structure validity is the second statistical test that used to test the validity of the
questionnaire structure by testing the validity of each field and the validity of the
whole questionnaire. It measures the correlation coefficient between one filed and all
the fields of the questionnaire that have the same level of Likert scale. Table 3.17
clarifies the correlation coefficient for each category of the time overruns, cost
overruns and the whole questionnaire. The p-values (Sig.) are less than 0.05 or 0.01,
so the correlation coefficients of all the fields are significant at α = 0.01 or α = 0.05,
so it can be said that the fields are valid to be measured what it was set for to achieve
the main aim of the study .
Table 3.17 :Correlation coefficient of Questionnaire and the total of this field at N= 124
Item Spearman Correlation Coefficient
P-Value (Sig.)
Time overruns factors
0.980
0.000(**)
Cost overruns factors
0.845
0.000(**)
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).
3.14 Reliability of the Research
The reliability of an instrument is the degree of consistency which measures the
attribute; it is supposed to be measuring (Poilt and Hungler,1985). The less variation
an instrument produces in repeated measurements of an attribute, the higher its
48
reliability. Reliability can be equated with the stability, consistency, or dependability
of a measuring tool. The test is repeated to the same sample of people on two
occasions and then compares the scores obtained by computing a reliability
coefficient (Poilt and Hungler, 1985).
3.14.1 Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha This method is used to measure the reliability of the questionnaire between each field
and the mean of the whole fields of the questionnaire. The normal range of
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha value between 0.0 and + 1.0, and the higher values
reflects a higher degree of internal consistency. As shown in table 3.18, the
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was calculated for the category of time overruns of the
questionnaire.
Table 3.18: Cronbach's Alpha for each Category of time overruns of the questionnaire and all the questionnaire
Field
Cronbach's Alpha
Project related factors 0.790 Contractors responsibility 0.886 Consultants responsibility 0.90 Owner's responsibility 0.874 Professional Management 0.889 Design and Documentation 0.901 Material 0.709 Execution) 0.763 Labor and equipment 0.763 Contractual relationship 0.757 Government relations 0.774 External factors 0.476 Total 0.956
Table 3.19 shows high values of Cronbach's Alpha for each category of the
questionnaire and the entire questionnaire, which means high reliability of the each
field of the questionnaire and high reliability for the entire questionnaire.
49
Table 3.19: Cronbach's Alpha for each Parts of time and cost overruns of the questionnaire and all the questionnaire
Field Cronbach's Alpha Time overruns 0.956 Cost overruns 0.907 Total 0.96
The results were in the range from 0.907 and 0.956. This range is considered high; the
result ensures the reliability of the questionnaire. In our study, Cronbach's Alpha
equals to 0.96 for the entire questionnaire which indicates a very good reliability of
the entire questionnaire. Thereby, it can be said that the researcher proved that the
questionnaire was valid, reliable, and ready for distribution for the population sample.
3.15 Process of data and analysis
After collecting the raw data of questionnaire, the data entered into computer
spreadsheet, SPSS program was used to analyze the data. In part A of questionnaire
(organization profile), the mean and the percent is used to get the result of this part
and to compare the opinions of contractor, owner and consultant, for the (factors
influencing time and cost overruns) , the importance index is used to rank the factors
for time overruns and cost overruns separately, also the importance index is used to
rank the groups of time overruns in questionnaire.
5
1i i
iI a x
== ∑ ………… (Enshassi et al 2003)
Where I = importance index
ai = 0,1,2,3,4 for i = 0,1,2,3,4 respectively
xi = frequency of the ith response given as a percentage of the total response for each
cause.
i = response category index where
ai = 0,1,2,3,4; for x1 = frequency of strongly not important response, x2 = frequency
of not important response, x3 = frequency of neutral response, x4 = frequency of the
important response and x5 = frequency of very important response. The final
processing and analysis of data will be covered at chapter 4 of this study.
50
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction This chapter describes the results and discussion of questionnaire survey concerning
time and cost overruns from contractors, consultants and owner viewpoints in Gaza
Strip. This chapter focuses on describing the respondent's characteristics in addition to
the discussion of the factors that influence time and cost overruns.
4.2 Part A: Population characteristics
This part mainly designed to provide general information about the respondents in
terms of the name of organization, major type of work involved, position and
experience contact person, location of organization, average of projects executed per
year and the number of constant employees at the organization.
4.2.1 Type of respondents organization In this study, 53.00 % (66) contractors, 25.00 % (31) owners, 22.00 % (27)
consultants participated in the questionnaire as shown at Fig (4.1). The general
response rate for contractors, owners and consultants was 82.11 % and the total
number of respondents for the three parties was 124 out 151 respondents. The
response rate of contractors was 82.50 % (66 out of 80 respondents), for the owner
81.58 % (31 out of 38 respondents) and 81.82 % (27 out of 33 respondents) for
consultants.
Contractors 53% (66)Ow ners
25% (31)
Consultants 22% (27)
Figure 4.1: Type of respondents` organization
51
4.2.2 Type of work executed by the respondents organization Figure 4.2 shows that the building represents the highest field of work for contractors
with 35.50 % (50) in buildings, 31.90 % (45) of work was in roads, 25.50 % (36) in
water and sewage and 7.1 % (10) of contractors work in electro mechanics projects.
Buildings 35.50% (50)
Electro mechanics 7.10% (10)
Water and Sew age
25.50% (36)
Roads 31.90% (45)
Figure 4.2: Type of work executed by the respondents contractors
Figure 4.3 shows that 31.60 % (30) of owner's projects are in building, 30.50 % (29)
of projects are in roads, 25.30 % (24) of projects are in water and sewage and 12.60 %
(12) are electro mechanics projects.
Buildings 31.60% (30)
Roads 30.50% (29)
Water and Sew age
25.30% (24)
Electro mechanics 12.60% (12)
Figure 4.3: Type of work executed by the respondents owners
52
Figure 4.4 shows that 30.70 % (27) of consultants work is in buildings projects, 29.50
% (26) roads, 23.90% (21) in water and sewage and 15.90 % (14) in electro
mechanics projects.
Roads 29.50% (26)
Buildings 30.70% (27)
Electro mechanics 15.90% (14)
Water and Sewage
23.90% (21)
Figure 4.4: Type of work executed by the respondents consultants
4.2.3 Respondents designation Figure 4.5 shows that 51.52 % (34) of contracting companies respondents were site
engineers, 31.82 % (21) were projects managers, 9.09 % (6) were the owners of
organization and 7.58 % (5) were office engineers. It has been founded that 51.61 %
(16) of owners respondents were site engineers, 29.03 % (9) were projects managers,
16.13 % (5) were office engineers and 3.23% (1) was the owner of organization. It has
been founded that 44.44 % (12) of the consultants companies respondents were
projects managers, 37.04 % (10) were site engineers, 11.11 % (3) were office
engineer and 7.41 % (2) of respondents were the owners of organization. Totally out
of 124 respondents for the three parties, 48.4 % (60) of the respondents were site
engineers, 33.90 % (42) were projects managers, 10.5 % (13) were office engineers
and 7.2 % (9) were the owners of organization.
53
7.58
%(5
)
31.8
2%(2
1)
51.5
2%(3
4)
9.09
%(6
)
16.1
3%(5
)29.0
3%(9
)
3.23
%(1
)
51.6
1%(1
6)
11.1
1%(3
)
37.0
4%(1
0)
44.4
4%(1
2)
7.41
%(2
)
0.0%5.0%
10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%45.0%50.0%55.0%60.0%
Ow
ner o
f Org
.
Proj
ect
man
ager
Site
Eng
inee
r
Offi
ceEn
gine
er
Respondents
Perc
ent
Contractor
Owner
Consultant
Figure 4.5: Respondents designation
4.2.4 Experience of respondents Table 4.1 shows that 37.1 % (46) of the respondents firm have experience between 5
to 10 years at construction works and the same percentage of respondents who have
experience more than 10 years, 15.3 % (19) of respondents have experience from 3 to
5 years, and 10.5 %(13) have experience from one to three years.
Table 4.1: Experience of respondents (years)
Contractor Owner Consultant Average
Expe
rienc
e o
f
resp
onde
nts
1-3 Yrs 13.60 % (9) 6.50 % (2) 7.40 % (2) 10.50 % (13)
3-5 Yrs 10.60 % (7) 29.00 % (9) 11.10 % (3) 15.30 % (19)
5-10 Yrs 44.00 % (29) 32.25 % (10) 25.90 % (7) 37.10 % (46)
More than 10
Years 31.80 % (21) 32.25 % (10) 55.60 % (15) 37.10 % (46)
Total 100 % (66) 100 % (31) 100 % (27) 100 % (27) 100 % (124)
54
4.2.5 Location of organization In this study, Gaza Strip is divided into four geographical region these parts are
(North of Gaza , Gaza city, Middle area and South of Gaza ). The response rate of
Gaza city was 47.60 % (59 respondents), 22.60 % (28 respondents) was from south of
Gaza, 19.30 % (24 respondents) was from North of Gaza and 10.50 % (13
respondents) was from middle area. Figure 4.6 shows that the respondents of
contracting companies are 15.10 % (10) from north of Gaza, 50 % (33) from Gaza
city, 9.10% (6) from the middle area and 25.80 % (17) from the south of Gaza. 25.80
% (8) of owners were from north of Gaza, 41.90 % (13) from Gaza, 12.90 % (4) from
middle area and 19.40 % (6) from south of Gaza. For the consultants, 22.20 % (6) of
respondents form north of Gaza, 48.20 % (13) from Gaza, 11.10 % (3) from middle
area and 18.50 % (5) from south of Gaza.
15.1
5%
50.0
0%
9.09
%
25.7
6%
41.9
4%
12.9
0%
19.3
5%22.2
2%
48.1
5%
11.1
1%
18.5
2%
25.8
1%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
North of Gaza Gaza Middle area South of Gaza
Location area
Perc
ent
ContractorOwnerConsultant
Figure 4.6: Location of organization
4.2.6 Cost of projects executed by the organization Figure 4.7 shows that only 22.60 % of respondents executed projects with cost less
than one million dollar per year, 33.90 % of respondents executed projects with cost
ranged from one to two million dollar, 27.40 % of respondents executed projects with
55
cost ranged from two to three million dollar. On the other hand 16.10 % of
respondents executed projects of total more than 3 millions dollar cost. It's concluded
that most organizational construction are considered as large organization in regard to
the project sizes in Gaza Strip.
27.3%16.1% 18.5% 22.6%
36.4%
32.3% 29.6%33.9%
22.7%
32.3% 33.3%27.4%
13.6% 19.4% 18.5% 16.1%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Contractor Owner Consultant Average
More than 3million $
2-3 million $
1-2 millon $
Less than 1million $
Figure 4.7: Cost of projects executed by the organization (million $)
4.2.7 Number of constant employees Due to the need of several employees at the organization to perform the required
works, it can be understood from figure 4.8 that the majority of contracting companies
(39.39 %) has less than 10 employees while only (13.64 %) of companies have more
than 20 employees. The majority of consulting companies (44.44 %) have from 10 to
15 employees while only (3.70 %) of consulting companies have more than 20
employees. The majority of owners organizations (29.03 %) have from 10 to 15
employees and the same rate from 15 to 20 employees, while (19.35 %) of owners
organizations have more than 20 employees.
56
39.3
9% (2
6)
31.8
2% (2
1)
15.1
5%(1
0)
13.6
4%(9
)22.5
8%(7
)
29.0
3%(9
)
29.0
3%(9
)
19.3
5%(6
)
3.70
%(1
)11.1
1%(3
)
44.4
4%(1
2)
40.7
4%(1
1)
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
Less than 10 10-15 15-20 More than 20
No. of constant employees
Perc
ent
Contractor
Owner
Consultant
Figure 4.8: Number of constant employees at Organization
4.3 Part B: Factors influencing time overruns at construction projects This part consist of results and discussion of factors that influence time overruns
(delay), the factors were grouped into 12 groups, these groups are; project related
factors, contractors responsibility, consultants responsibility, owners responsibilities,
professional management, design and documentation, materials, execution, labour
and equipment, contractual relationship, governmental relationship and external
factors.
4.3.1 Group1: Project related factors Contractors view
Table 4.2 shows that the respondents contractors ranked "the suspension of work by
owner or contractor" in the first position with importance index (I.I = 71.97 %), which
indicates the high importance of work continuity in order to complete the project on
time. The suspension of work creates disputes between the parties of project. The
sequence of project activities will be affected, which lead to delay. This result is not
consistent with Fong et al (2006). This may traced to the severe political situation in
Gaza which it differs from Hong Kong.
57
The second important factor ranked by respondents contractors was discrepancies
between contract documents (I.I = 65.53 %). This is a strong indication that any
discrepancy between the documents will cause delay. Sometimes the drawings of
project differ from technical specification or bill of quantity, which in turn creates
confusion in the implementation of contractor's work. This can cause disputes
between contractor and supervisor team, which lead to project delay. This result is in
line with the results of Odeh and Battaineh (2002), Fong et al (2006), and Sambasivan
and Soon (2007). The suitable description of this agreement is that the discrepancies
of contract documents aren't affected by the geographical location or by the climate of
construction. Any mistake or discrepancy in contract documents would delay the
project. Table4.2 : Project related factors that lead to time overruns
Project related factors contractor consultant owner
II Rank II Rank II Rank
Suspension of work by owner or contractor 71.97 1 83.33 1 77.42 1
Discrepancies between contract documents 65.53 2 76.85 2 63.71 2
Inflexibility of donor in giving appropriate
periods for project implementation 65.15 3 60.19 5 46.77 7
Donor own policy in implementation methods
and characteristics of the project 63.26 4 61.11 4 50.81 4
Inappropriate type of contract used (e.g.
traditional, design- and- build, etc.) 57.69 5 51.85 8 48.00 6
Slow information flow between project team
members 56.92 6 62.04 3 48.39 5
High quality of finishes needed 56.06 7 41.67 9 55.65 3
Inconsistency between the project and its
environmental due to donor agenda 55.68 8 58.33 6 41.13 9
Poor site safety 53.41 9 55.56 7 45.16 8
"Inflexibility of donor in giving appropriate periods for project implementation" (I.I =
65.15 %) was ranked as the third important factor to cause delay at this group. This
reason of time overruns is one of the clearest factors that cause the delay in Gaza
Strip. Owner identify the duration of project by existing experience without referring
to scientific studies of required time for the project. Since the Gaza Strip has special
economic and security situation, then the duration of project should be determined of
each project individually.
58
Table 4.2 shows that the respondents contractors ranked the "poor site safety" (I.I =
53.41 %) as the last factor because there are poor culture of safety importance for
contractors. Any incident of the site will automatically cause delay, till now the
contractors of Gaza Strip didn't realize the great importance of maintaining the safety
in site.
Consultants view
Table 4.2 shows that the respondents consultants ranked the suspension of work by
owner or by contractor (I.I = 83.33 %) as the first factor causes delay as shown in
table 4.2. This result is in full conformity with the respondent's contractors, but in the
case of consultant, the proportion of the importance index is higher, which means that
consultant are more technically aware of elements and give them greater priority than
others.
The second factor cause delay was "discrepancies between, contract document" ( I.I =
76.85 %). This result is in full conformity with the results of the respondent's
contractors, this similarity of opinions indicate the importance of this factor. The third
important factor ranked by consultants was slow information flow between project
team members (I.I = 62.04 %). The flow of information between team members helps
to clarify what is going on regarding to the various activities, helps to clarify the
responsibilities of everyone involved. So any miss of information flow will lead to
stop or to suspend the work, then the delay may occur.
The respondents consultants as shown in table 4.2 classify the high quality of finishes
needed (I.I = 41.67 %) as the least factor that causes delay in this group. This result is
consistent with the nature of most construction projects at Gaza Strip. Since the
required finishes are well- known to contractors and technicians, so the high quality of
finishes needed doesn't cause any time overruns for the projects.
Owners view
Table 4.2 shows that the respondents owners ranked the suspension work by owner or
by contractor (I.I = 77.42 %) as the first factor causing delay in this group. The
second important factor was discrepancies between contract documents (I.I = 63.71
59
%). This result is identical in terms of order with the contractor and consultant, which
support the importance of these factors.
Respondents owners as shown in table 4.2 ranked the inconsistency between the
project and environment due to donor agenda (I.I = 41.13 %) as the lowest important
factor, of delay at this category. There are some donors who specify the type or nature
of project, such as infrastructure projects, construction project, relief projects, so
policies of donors should be respected by owner. Therefore, this factor didn't
represent any delay of the project due to such consideration.
Spearman rank correlation coefficient
Spearman rank correlation coefficient is used to determine whether there is evidence
of a linear relationship between two ordinal variables, or, if both variables are interval
and the normality requirement may not be satisfied. The sample spearman correlation
coefficient is denoted rs and is given by: (Saleh; 2001)
( )
n2i
i 1s 2
6 dr 1
n n 1== −−
∑
where:
rs = Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient
d = the difference in ranking between the usage and effectiveness of factors
n = the number of factors
Spearman rank correlation coefficient of the "project" group
Table 4.3 presents the spearman correlation coefficient for group "project" among
contractor, owner and consultant. For this group, the correlation coefficient between
contractor and owner equals to 0.782 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.006. The P-value is less
than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is a significant relationship between
contractor and owner. The correlation coefficient between contractor and consultant
equals to 0.804 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.004. The P-value is less than the level of
60
significance, 0.05α = , so there is a significant relationship between contractor and
consultant. In addition, The correlation coefficient between owner and consultant
equals to 0.697 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.018. The P-value is less than the level of
significance, 0.05α = , so there is a significant relationship between owner and
consultant.
Table 4.3 : Correlation test of project group among contractor, consultant and owner
Group
Contractor
and owner P-Value
Contractor
and
consultant P-Value
Owner and
consultant P-Value
Correlation
coefficient
Correlation
coefficient
Correlation
coefficient
Project 0.782 0.006* 0.804 0.004* 0.697 0.018*
* Correlation is significant at 0.05 significance level.
4.3.2 Group2: Contractor's responsibilities Contractors view
Table 4.4 shows that respondents contractors ranked "cash problem during
construction" in the first position with importance index (I.I = 83.08 %), which
indicates the high importance of cash for the progress of project. Any shortage of cash
for the contractor will cause many problems such as slow progress and work decline
in productivity. Also the contractors will not be able to purchase the needed
equipment for work. More over the problem of cash also expanded to traders and
suppliers, which in turn leads to slow the work, then to occurrence of project's delay.
This result coincides with the results of Arditi et al (1985), Assaf et al (1995),
Ogunlana et al (1996), Mezher and Tawil (1998), Al- Khalil et al (1999), Chan et al
(2002), Enshassi et al (2003), and Alaghbari et al (2007). The suitable description for
this consensus that the cash is very necessary for contractor regardless of the location
of research, economic level, or the culture of organization. But the contractors at the
study of Ogunlana et al (1996) in Thailand didn't consider the cash as one of
61
important factor causing delay. The ability of contractor in Thailand may be the
suitable interpretation for this result.
The second important factor ranked by respondents contractors was poor site
management (I.I = 81.06 %). Poor management cause many constrains at the projects,
such as poor following up of progress, incorrect distribution of works, un commitment
of employees at the site, poor monitoring of project --etc. These factors above
contribute to delay the project.
Table 4.4 : Contractor's responsibilities factors that lead to time overruns
Contractor's responsibilities contractor consultant owner
II Rank II Rank II Rank
Cash problem during construction 83.08 1 92.59 1 83.06 1
Poor site management 81.06 2 87.96 2 80.65 2
Equipments and tool shortage on site 76.52 3 75.93 9 70.97 10
Unethical behaviors used by contractors to
achieve the highest possible level of profit 73.08 4 77.78 7 75.81 4
low productivity of labour 72.35 5 52.78 21 58.87 21
Dependence on a newly –graduated engineer to
bear the whole responsibilities in the site 71.97 6 65.74 14 63.71 15
Mistakes during construction 71.21 7 75.93 9 64.52 14
Lack of experience on the part of the
consultant's site- staff; (managerial and
supervisory personnel)
70.83 8 58.33 19 74.19 7
Poor distribution of labor 69.70 9 60.19 17 75.00 6
Lack of subcontractor's skills 69.32 10 73.15 11 67.74 11
Inadequate contractor experience 68.94 11 84.26 4 61.29 18
Insufficient number of staffs (contractor) 68.46 12 87.04 3 79.84 3
Contractor un commitment to consultant
instructions 66.67 13 77.78 7 67.74 11
Uncompromising attitude between parties 64.02 14 44.44 23 63.71 15
Spend some time to find sub-contractors
company who is appropriate for each task 63.26 15 78.70 6 66.94 13
62
Table 4.4 : Contractor's responsibilities factors that lead to time overruns (cont.)
Contractor's responsibilities contractor consultant owner
II Rank II Rank II Rank
Poor communications and misunderstanding 62.69 16 70.37 13 59.68 20
Low harmony between technician team of
contractor and consultant which may lead to
controversy between both of them
62.50 17 72.22 12 62.90 17
Use of unemployment programs in projects 62.50 17 50.93 22 75.81 4
Equipment allocation problems 60.61 19 63.89 15 60.48 19
Failure in testing 60.61 19 84.26 4 73.39 8
Lack of protection of complete work 59.09 21 56.48 20 53.23 23
Often changing sub-contractors company 58.33 22 60.19 17 72.58 9
Insufficient contractor competition 57.20 23 61.11 16 58.87 21
The results of Arditi et al (1985), Assaf et al (1995), Chan et al (1996), Ogunlana et al
(1996), Kaming et al (1997), Kumaraswamy et al (1998), Al- Khalil et al (1999), Alwi
et al 2002, Odeh and Battaineh (2002), Enshassi et al (2003), Abudul-Rahman et al
(2006), and Alaghbari et al (2007) are similar to our finding. Poor site management
and delayed activities could lead to interruption of work sequence which eventually
lead to delay. The result of Mezher et al (1998) in Lebanon didn't coincide with this
result that poor site management cause delay. In Lebanon the managerial skills of
staff is available.
Equipment and tools shortage on site (I.I = 76.52 %) was ranked as the third factor
which cause delay in this group. The completion of various tasks requires special
equipment or tools. With shortage of equipment and tools, the delay will occur, which
lead to delay the project. The results of Assaf et al (1995), Ogunlana et al (1996),
Kaming et al (1997), Mezher et al (1998), Al- Khalil et al (1999), Alwi et al (2002),
Odeh and Battaineh (2002), Wong et al (2005), Abudul-Rahman et al (2006), and
Alaghbari et al (2007) didn't coincide with this finding that equipment and tools
shortage is one of the important factors cause delay. The researches were conducted in
places where construction equipment and tools shortage is not present as Jordan,
Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Hong Kong --- etc. But this is not the case in Gaza
Strip, where construction equipment and tools shortage is frequently occurs due to the
63
severe political situation and constrains. Enshassi et al (2003) agreed with the result
obtained in this research that equipment and tools shortage causes delay.
Respondents contractors considered "the unethical behavior used by contractor to
achieve the highest possible level of profit" (I.I = 73.08 %) as the fourth factor that
cause delay in this group. This mean that contractors are well understand that
unethical behaviors lead to significant disputes between the contractor and
supervision staff, and lead to mistrust. Finally these attitudes will cause a delay of
project.
Table 4.4 shows that respondents contractors ranked the "insufficient contractor
competition" (I.I =57.20 %) as the least factor that cause delay. The most appropriate
interpretation that there are a large number of contractors in Gaza Strip and the
number of projects are limited. This environment is a proper for high competition in
the construction industry markets.
Consultants view
Table 4.4 shows that the respondents consultants ranked the cash problem during
construction (I.I = 92.59 %) as the first factor to cause delay in this category, the
second factor to cause delay was poor site management (I.I = 87.96 %). This result is
in full conformity with the respondent contractors, but in the case of consultant, the
value of the importance index is higher.
The third important factor ranked by consultants was insufficient number of staff for
contractor (I.I = 87.04 %). This is a strong indication of the importance of the
technical staff for the contractor. The small number of staff cause a great burden on
the technical staff in work, which in turn leads to poor quality of work, increasing the
liabilities and responsibilities, and miss of concentration, which lead to a delay. The
problem is one of the major problems in Gaza Strip, where contractor often depends
on one engineer at the project to manage all technical and managerial activities of
project.
"Insufficient number of staff for contractor" have high importance index as mentioned
before, but in the researches of Arditi et al (1985), Ogunlana et al (1996), Karen et al
(2006), Alaghbari et al (2007), Chan et al (1996), Al- Khalil et al (1999), Alwi et al
64
(2002), and Wong et al (2005) this factor has low rank. This contradiction was
because these researches were conducted in places with different culture, availability
of well trained personnel enforceable labour law such as Turkey, Arabia Saudi, Hong
Kong, Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia.
"Inadequate contractor experience" (I.I = 84.26 %) and failure in testing (84.26 %)
were ranked as the fourth factors for delay by consultants at this group. This result
explains that the experience of contractor in work performance and executing of
similar projects will allow the contractor to execute the work more professionalism
and in short time, rather than the contractor executing the project for the first time. In
the same content, it is obvious that the failure of any test of various materials or
activities cause delay to the project. When failure occurs, the contractor would be
obligated to re-work the works or replace the failed materials.
The results of Chan et al (1996), Odeh and Battaineh (2002), Enshassi et al (2003),
and Karen et al (2006) agreed with the results of this thesis in that inadequate
contractor experience is one of the major factors that cause delay. The geographical
location or the culture of people didn't affect this factor, so the results in the Gaza
Strip and other countries are similar. Failure of test have a high importance index and
considered as one of important factors causing delay but Odeh and Battaineh (2002),
and Abudul-Rahman et al (2006) didn't agreed with this result. At Gaza Strip the
failure of tests mean rework, the rework need new materials, staff and to track the
schedule. This is a hard task in Gaza Strip due to shortage of materials due to closures
and inadequate experience of the contractors.
The respondents consultants ranked the "uncompromising attitude between parties"
(I.I = 44.44 %) as the least factor causing delay at this category. Consultants consider
that the divergence of views and attitudes among contractor, consultant and owner
doesn't lead to the delay of project, because each party interested in performing the
project on time.
Owners view
Table 4.4 shows that the respondents owners ranked "cash problem during
construction" (I.I = 83.06 %) as the first factor to cause delay in this category, and the
65
second important factor was poor site management (I.I = 80.65 %). This result is
identical in terms of order with the contractor and consultant, which reflect the
importance of these factors. "Insufficient number of staff for contractor" (I.I = 79.84
%) is the third factor of time overruns ranked by owner. This result is identical in
terms of order with the consultant, so the result shows the importance of high
responsibilities of contractor's staff. This means that any shortage of staff
performance or their productivity leads to delay of the project.
"Unethical behaviors used by contractor to achieve the highest possible level of
profit" ( I.I = 79.84 %) and the "use of unemployment program in projects" ( I.I =
79.84 %) were classified as the fourth factors to cause time overrun in this category.
As mentioned before, any unethical behavior by contractor will cause disputes, then
lead to delay. The unemployment programs generate a large number of workers on
site, the unemployment programs were mainly created to help the poor people
regardless to their productivity. This will lead to poor productivity and then to the
occurrence of delay.
Respondents owners as shown in table 4.4 ranked the lack of protection of complete
work (I.I = 53.33 %) as the least factor of delay at this category. The protection of
work doesn't require high cost. It requires only the cost of guarding the site. Also it's
noted that destruction of any work at the project is difficult to occur. This
phenomenon is of low occurrence and therefore has no effect on the delay of the
project.
Spearman rank correlation coefficient of the " contractor responsibilities" group
Table 4.5 presents the spearman correlation coefficient for group "contractor's
responsibilities" among contractor, owner and consultant. For this group, the
correlation coefficient between contractor and owner equals to 0.544 with P-value
(Sig.) = 0.004. The P-value is less than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is
a significant relationship between contractor and owner. The correlation coefficient
between contractor and consultant equals to 0.477 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.011. The P-
value is less than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is a significant
relationship between contractor and consultant. In addition, the correlation coefficient
between owner and consultant equals to 0.456 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.014. The P-
66
value is less than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is a significant
relationship between owner and consultant.
Table 4.5 : Correlation test of contractor's responsibilities group among contractor, consultant
and owner
Group
Contractor
and owner P-
Value
Contractor
and
consultant P-Value
Owner and
consultant P-Value
Correlation
coefficient
Correlation
coefficient
Correlation
coefficient
Contractor's
responsibilities
0.544 0.004* 0.477 0.011* 0.456 0.014*
* Correlation is significant at 0.05 significance level.
4.3.3 Group3: Consultant's responsibilities Contractors view
Table 4.6 shows that respondents contractors ranked "the delay of materials approval
by consultant" in the first position with importance index (I.I = 76.15 %), which
indicates the high importance of each party to perform required work. The delay of
materials approval will lead to suspend the work. If the delay of materials approval
was intentional or as a result of staff lacking experience, it will also cause a delay for
the project.
The research results of Sambasivan and Soon (2007), and Alaghbari et al (2007) show
similar result that the delay of materials approval by consultant is one of important
factors of delay. This agreement supports the importance of consultant role in
approving the materials. Also the result reflects the similarity of Gaza consultants and
Malaysian constructions environment regarding to this factor. The researchers results
of Ogunlana et al (1996), and Fong et al (2006) didn't agree with this result, that delay
of materials approval by consultant cause delay. The consultants in Hong Kong and
Thailand have enough experience to approve the construction materials in short time.
67
The second important factor ranked by respondents contractors was "waiting time for
approval of tests and poor inspection" (I.I = 75.77 %). This result confirms what was
discussed in the previous paragraph, that the slow work of consultant will cause a
delay of project. In Gaza Strip, most of consultants consider themselves as the
decisions makers at the project, not as partners. The consultant may postponed some
activities, or may haven't sufficient experience to follow up these activities which lead
to slow the progress of the project, thus the delay will occur. This result coincides
with the results of Odeh and Battaineh (2002), Fong et al (2006), Sambasivan and
Soon (2007), and Alaghbari et al (2007), which reflect the high responsibility of
consultant in the approval of tests. Consultants should admit their duties and
responsibilities in construction process to save the time of the project.
Table 4.6 : Consultant's responsibilities factors that influencing time overruns
Consultant's responsibilities contractor consultant owner
II Rank II Rank II Rank
Delay of materials approval by consultant 76.15 1 51.85 4 66.13 4
Waiting time for approval of tests and Poor
inspection 75.77 2 53.70 3 70.97 1
Slowness in giving instructions 70.83 3 40.74 7 68.55 3
Centralization of decision making process from
consultant party 70.45 4 66.67 1 70.97 1
Delays of payments 70.45 4 38.89 8 55.65 9
Lack of technical and managerial skills of staff 70.08 6 37.96 10 65.32 5
Bad past history and reputation of the
consultant (corruption) 69.32 7 29.63 12 50.00 12
Lack of job security for the consultancy team 68.18 8 62.04 2 60.48 7
Bad contract management by Consultant 67.42 9 37.04 11 63.71 6
Little periodical sessions to address work
problems 64.77 10 45.37 5 46.77 13
Absence of consultant's site staff 62.50 11 41.67 6 56.45 8
Previous dispute between contractor and
consultant 61.15 12 18.52 13 54.03 11
Lack of quality assurance / control 60.61 13 38.89 8 55.65 9
68
"Slowness in giving instructions" (I.I = 70.83 %) was ranked as the third factor to
cause delay at this group. In this group and for the third time, it shows the importance
of consultant decisions, the speed or slowness of these decisions and the impact of
these decisions on progress of the project. As mentioned in the previous paragraphs,
these decisions of consultant become prevalent culture to deal with the project. The
results of Alwi et al (2002), and Alaghbari et al (2007) agreed with this result, that
slowness in giving instruction is one of the major causes of delay. As mentioned
before, consultants should have sufficient experience to perform all of their
responsibilities quickly and with high professionalism. The lack of consultant's
instructions lead to project's delay.
Table 4.6 shows that respondents contractors ranked the "lack of quality assurance /
control" (I.I = 60.61 %) as the least factor that cause delay. The most appropriate
interpretation of this rank is that the consultants of Gaza Strip achieve the required
quality at construction projects, also the contractors are committed by the instructions
of consultant. In this case the quality will be achieved, so the quality of work doesn't
strongly contribute to the delay of project.
Consultants view
Table 4.6 shows that the respondents consultants ranked the "centralization of
decision making process from consultant party" (I.I = 66.67 %) as the first factor
causes delay at this category. The centralization of consultant decision making
process is one of important factor that affect the decisions of engineers at the site. The
site engineers and other lower positions resort to managers to deal with the matters of
work, this culture is prevailing in Gaza Strip. Therefore the weakness in the
personality and inadequate experience of those site engineers lead to the delay.
The second factor to cause delay was "lack of job security for the consultancy team"
(I.I = 62.04 %). This result reflects the concern over the situation of staff member of
consultant, they don't receive necessary job security. This results shows the high
importance of this factor. In Gaza Strip job security is not guaranteed in labour
markets. In Japan, job security is grant to all workers which motivate those workers to
accelerate the work, but when job security is not grant, the contrary would happen.
This certainly affects the quality of work, and then the delay will occurs. The third
69
important factor ranked by consultant was waiting time for approval of tests and poor
inspection ( I.I = 53.70 %). This result is in full conformity with the results of the
respondent's contractors, this similarity of opinions reflects the importance of this
factor.
The respondents consultants as shown in table 4.6 classified the previous disputes
between contractor and consultant (I.I = 18.52 %) as the least factor to cause delay at
this category. Any previous disputes or bad relationship between the contractor and
consultant don't affect the progress of work, this result prove that the consultant is full
– neutral and doesn't preclude problems or difference in order to obtain the highest
quality at the project.
Owners view
Table 4.6 shows that the respondents owners ranked waiting time for approval of tests
and poor inspection (I.I = 70.97 %) as the first factor to cause delay at this category,
and also the "centralization of decision making process from consultant party" (I.I =
70.97 %). This result is identical in terms of order with the consultant, which reflects
the importance of this factor. Slowness in giving instructions (I.I = 68.55 %) is the
third factor of time overruns ranked by owner. This result is identical in terms of order
with the contractor, which reflects the importance of these factors.
Respondents owners as shown in table 4.6 ranked the little periodical sessions to
address work problems (I.I = 46.77 %) as the less important factor of delay at this
group. This result reduces the importance of periodic meetings to resolve problems
related to work. Therefore it doesn't affect the delayed projects, but this result shows
that there is a misunderstanding of the role of these meetings. These meetings are very
helpful in solving many problems, which might lead to delay of the project in the case
of failure to find appropriate solutions to these problems.
Spearman rank correlation coefficient of the "consultant responsibilities" group
Table 4.7 presents the spearman correlation coefficient for group "consultant's
responsibilities" among contractor, owner and consultant. For this group, the
correlation coefficient between contractor and owner equals to 0.649 with P-value
70
(Sig.) = 0.008. The P-value is less than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is
a significant relationship between contractor and owner. The correlation coefficient
between contractor and consultant equals to 0.485 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.046 The P-
value is less than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is a significant
relationship between contractor and consultant. In addition, the correlation coefficient
between owner and consultant equals to 0.538 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.029. The P-
value is less than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is a significant
relationship between owner and consultant.
Table 4.7 : Correlation test of consultant's responsibilities group among contractor, consultant and owner
* Correlation is significant at 0.05 significance level.
4.3.4 Group 4: Owners responsibilities Contractor views
Table 4.8 shows that respondents contractors ranked "owner delay in freeing the
contractor financial payments" in the first position with importance index (I.I = 76.52
%). Payments is considered as the first factor to complete the project on time, as any
delay of freeing contractor payments. It will affect contractor's financial
responsibilities, such as wages, the purchase of materials -- etc.
The results of Al- Khalil et al (1999), Chan et al (2002), Odeh and Battaineh (2002),
Enshassi et al (2003), Abudul-Rahman et al (2006), Fong et al (2006), Sambasivan
and Soon (2007), and Alaghbari et al (2007) agreed with this result, that owner delay
in freeing the contractor financial payment is one of important causes of delay.
Owners should perform their duties without delay. Payments are considered as
Group
Contractor
and owner P-Value
Contractor
and
consultant P-Value
Owner and
consultant P-Value
Correlation
coefficient
Correlation
coefficient
Correlation
coefficient
Consultant's
responsibilities
0.649 0.008* 0.485 0.046* 0.538 0.029*
71
backbone of contractor to complete the project on time. So the owner should be aware
of the importance of contractor's payments.
The second important factor ranked by respondents contractors was "contract
modification (replacement and addition of new- work to the project and change in
specification)" ( I.I = 75.76 %). Contract modification is one of the important reasons
that cause delay. As any modification in the technical specification, bill of quantities
or replace any work with another one, it would lead to disputes between the
contractor's and owner's teams. To solve these disputes and develop new agreements,
it takes additional time that affects the project schedule and hence affect the total
duration of the project.
Table 4.8 : Owner's responsibilities Factors that influencing time overruns
Owner's responsibilities contractor consultant owner
II Rank II Rank II Rank
Owner delay in freeing the contractor financial
payments 76.52 1 38.89 9
33.06 5
Contract modifications (replacement and
addition of – new work to the project and
change in specifications)
75.76 2 71.3 1 67.74 1
Owner – initiated variation 73.46 3 64.81 2 48.39 2
Unrealistic contract durations imposed by
owner 71.59 4
59.26 3 20.16 9
Owner interference 70.83 5 52.78 4 29.03 7
Unrealistic owners initial requirements 67.05 6 49.07 6 33.06 5
Lack of unified system for contracts, general
conditions, and specifications of projects 64.77 7 42.59 8 45.83 3
Owner has no priority/ urgency to complete the
project 62.12 8 50.00 5 26.61 8
High quality of work 54.55 9 48.15 7 35.48 4
"Owner initiated variation" (I.I = 73.46 %) was ranked as the third factor to cause
delay at this group. Variation order is one of obvious reasons to extend the original
duration of project, thus it contributes to delay of the project handing over. Often the
required additional duration of variations are specified in the agreement. This result is
72
coincides with the result of Fong et al (2006) and Lo et al (2006). This agreement
reflects the importance of this factor. Variation hold the project to additional duration
and cost, so in this case the "owner's responsibility" of delay is high.
Table 4.8 shows that respondents contractors ranked "high quality of work" (I.I =
54.55 %) as the least factor that cause delay. The most appropriate interpretation of
this rank is that the required quality of work at Gaza Strip is high; also the quality
standards are similar in all projects. Through the tendering phase the owner specify
the needed quality of work, so the contractor attended to this point from the beginning
of the project.
Consultants view
Table 4.8 shows that the respondents consultants ranked the "contract modification
(replacement and additional of - new work to the project and change in specification)"
( I.I = 71.3 %) and "owner – initiated variation" ( I.I = 64.81 %) as the first and
second factors causes of delay. This result is in full conformity with the results of the
respondent's contractors, this similarity of opinions reflect the importance of these
factors.
The third factor ranked by consultants was the "unrealistic contract duration imposed
by owner" ( I.I = 59.22 %). This is a strong indication of the importance of project
duration. In Gaza Strip, the project duration determined roughly, the owner depends
on his/her experience to determine the project duration, therefore the project may be
delayed. One of the important obligations of owner is to determine the duration of
project according to the volume of activates. Owners in the Gaza Strip don't
determine the projects duration precisely, then the project will be delayed. Odeh and
Battaineh (2002), Fong et al (2006), Lo et al (2006), and Sambasivan and Soon (2007)
have similar results that it's very important to determine the duration of project
precisely by the owner and to be realistic in terms of type, volume and location of
project.
The respondents consultants as shown in table 4.8 ranked the "owner delay in freeing
the contractor financial payments" (I.I = 38.89 %) as the least factor causes delay at
this category. In this case the consultant's opinion completely contradicts with the
73
contractors. The suitable explanation of this case, that the consultant considers that
there is an existing cash with contractor, to meet his/ her needs when the payment is
delayed. To reconcile the opinions of contractor and consultant, contractor should
store a part of cash, and owner to fasten the payments of contractor to avoid harming
the contractor.
Owners view
Table 4.8 shows that the respondents owners ranked the contract modification
(replacement and additional of - new work to the project and change in specification)
(I.I = 67.74 %) as the first factor to cause delay at this category, and the second
important factor was owner initiated variation (I.I = 48.39 %). In this group the
arrangement doesn't mean the importance of these factors in causing the delay.
Owners didn't consider themselves as the one of direct causes of delay. Owners give
high priority to complete the project on time, so the owners can benefit from project.
This means that owners hold the responsibilities of delay to others.
Spearman rank correlation coefficient of the "owner's responsibility" group
Table 4.9 presents the spearman correlation coefficient for group "owner's
responsibilities" among contractor, owner and consultant. For this group, the
correlation coefficient between contractor and owner equals to 0.363 with P-value
(Sig.) = 0.169. The P-value is greater than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there
is insignificant relationship between contractor and owner. The correlation coefficient
between contractor and consultant equals to 0.384 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.154. The P-
value is greater than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is insignificant
relationship between contractor and consultant. In addition, the correlation coefficient
between owner and consultant equals to 0.623 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.037. The P-
value is less than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is a significant
relationship between owner and consultant.
74
Table 4.9 : Correlation test of owner's responsibilities group among contractor, consultant and
owner
Group
Contractor
and owner P-Value
Contractor
and
consultant P-
Value
Owner
and consultant P-Value
Correlation
coefficient
Correlation
coefficient
Correlation
coefficient
Owner's
responsibilities
0.363 0.169 0.384 0.154 0.623 0.037*
* Correlation is significant at 0.05 significance level.
4.3.5 Group 5: Professional management factors Contractors view
Table 4.10 shows that the respondents contractors ranked "the poor judgment in
estimating time and resource" in the first position with importance index (I.I = 75.00
%), which indicates the high importance of estimating time and resource of each
activity. The project is a series of activities, so in the case of labour shortage or in the
case of inaccurate estimation of any time or resources of activities, the project will be
delayed. This result agreed with the results of Mezher et al (1998), Enshassi et al
(2003), and Abudul-Rahman et al (2006). The suitable interpretation for this
agreement is that the estimation of time and required resource is very critical and
important task.
Table 4.10 : Professional management factors that lead to time overruns
Professional Management factors contractor consultant owner
II Rank II Rank II Rank
Poor judgment in estimating time and resources 75.00 1 53.7 8 66.13 4
Poor provision of information to project
participants 73.48 2 66.67 4 66.13 4
Inadequate construction planning 71.97 3 75.00 1 65.32 6
Inadequate managerial skills for all parties 71.97 3 65.74 5 70.16 2
Low speed of decision making within each
project team 71.97 3 62.04 6 71.77 1
75
Table 4.10 : Professional management factors that lead to time overruns (cont.)
Professional Management factors contractor consultant owner
II Rank II Rank II Rank
Back of follow up for the project schedule and
absence of continuous tracking 71.97 3 72.22 3 59.68 10
Slow of inspection and testing procedure used
in project 71.21 7 29.63 11 60.48 9
Bad preparing and approval of shop drawings 70.83 8 55.56 7 65.32 6
Lack of personnel training and management
support 70.83 8 53.7 8 57.26 11
Lack of contractor's home office follows up 70.83 8 45.37 10 62.10 8
Rework of bad quality performance 67.80 11 74.07 2 69.35 3
The second important factor ranked by respondents contractors was the "poor
provision of information to project participants" (I.I = 73.48 %). The poor provision
of information to project participants is probably one of two cases; the first one, is that
site engineer may behaves moody, this behavior generate many problems which may
cause delay. The second case is the frequent occurrence in the site, which can't be
solved by site engineers, such as the progress of work, labour, productivity, payments
and others which will lead to delay of the project
Table 4.10 shows that respondents contractors ranked the "rework of bad quality
performance" (I.I = 67.80 %) as the least factor that cause delay. The contractor
considered the rework as a result of contractor's errors, and the contractor is the only
party who is responsible of this type of delay. This result of respondents contractors
isn't convincing, because the rework needs additional duration and cost, which means
the delay must occur.
Consultants view
Table 4.10 shows that the respondents consultants ranked the "inadequate
construction planning" (I.I = 75.00 %) as the first factor to cause delay. This result
shows the importance of planning and time scheduling to deliver the project on time.
When the activities execution is without priorities of tasks and without knowledge of
critical path activities, it certainly causes the delay of project. The research results of
76
Alwi et al (2002), Enshassi et al (2003), Abudul-Rahman et al (2006), and Fong et al
(2006) agreed with the result of this thesis, that the inadequate construction planning
is one of the major causes of delay.
The second factor to cause delay was "rework of low quality performance" ( I.I =
74.07 %). Certainly the rework of low quality performance cost more time, efforts,
and money, so the contractor must be aware of the quality of the work performed. The
third factor ranked by consultants was "lack of follow up the project schedule and
absence of continuous tracking" (I.I = 72.22 %). One of the most major management
problems in Gaza Strip is poor planning and monitoring of the project, particularly by
the contractor. The absence of time schedule tracking cause many problems such as;
contractor's ignorance with progress rate of project, the resource needed to complete
the project and the delivery date of project. These matters mentioned above lead to
delay the project.
The respondents consultants as shown in table 4.10 classify the "slowness of
inspection and testing procedure used in project" (I.I = 29.63 %) as the least factor to
cause delay in this group. In this case the consultant considered himself as
irresponsible of delays, even if he play a major role in slowing the inspections of the
work, or use unreasonable procedures in testing. This opinion in consistent to some
extent with what is happening at the site, because any failure of consultants duties
may cause project delay.
Owners view
Table 4.10 shows that the respondents owners ranked slowness of decision making
within each project team (I.I = 71.77 %) as the first factor causes delay in this
category. This result shows the effectiveness of decision making on time whether it is
from the contractor, consultant or owner. Any delay in the decision would certainly
stop the related activity, then it leads to disputes among parties, which means a delay
of the project. The results of Alwi et al (2002), Odeh and Battaineh (2002), Enshassi
et al (2003), and Alaghbari et al (2007) coincide with research result that the slow
decision making within each project team is one of important factors to cause delay.
however Al- Khalil et al 1999, and Assaf et al (2006) contravenes with this result. The
size of projects, and availability of experts may be the cause of contradiction.
77
"Inadequate managerial skills for all parties" (I.I = 70.16 %) was ranked as the second
factor of time overruns ranked by owners. Each party at the project should has the
adequate managerial skills and a particular experience to manage the various tasks at
the project with proper techniques. As any floundering in the management of a
project, lack in organizing the work in the site, or failure in resource organization
would cause delay to the project.
"Rework of low quality performance" (I.I = 69.35 %) was classified as the third factor
to cause time overrun in this category. This result is identical in terms of order with
the consultant, which reflects the importance of this factor. Respondents owner as
shown in table 4.6 ranked the lack of personnel training and management support (I.I
= 57.26 %) as the least factor of delay at this category. Lack of top management
supports contributes significantly in the lack of sufficient experience of engineers. As
the weakness of experience and training effect the productivity of staff in the site.
Spearman rank correlation coefficient of the " professional management" group
Table 4.11 presents the spearman correlation coefficient for group "professional
management" among contractor, owner and consultant. For this group, the correlation
coefficient between contractor and owner equals to 0.021 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.476.
The P-value is greater than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is insignificant
relationship between contractor and owner. The correlation coefficient between
contractor and consultant equals to - 0.073 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.415. The P-value is
greater than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is insignificant relationship
between contractor and consultant. In addition, the correlation coefficient between
owner and consultant equals to 0.43 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.094. The P-value is
greater than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is insignificant relationship
between owner and consultant.
78
Table 4.11: Correlation test of professional management group among contractor, consultant
and owner
Group
Contractor
and owner P-
Value
Contractor
and consultant P-
Value
Owner and
consultant P-
Value Correlation
coefficient
Correlation
coefficient
Correlation
coefficient
Professional
Management 0.021 0.476 -0.073 0.415 0.430 0.094
* Correlation is significant at 0.05 significance level.
4.3.6 Group 6: Design and documentation factors Contractors view
Table 4.12 shows that respondents contractors ranked "incomplete drawings" in the
first position with importance index (I.I = 71.59 %). Sometimes the site is handed
over to contractor while the drawings of the project are incomplete, so the consultant
should complete these drawing before start the work. In some occasions, the
consultant may complete the drawings gradually, according to the priorities of
activities. For the two cases, the project is delayed. therefore the design team should
complete the drawings before the tendering phase. This result is agreed with the result
of Ogunlana et al (1996) that incomplete drawing is one of important causes of delay.
Incomplete drawing doesn't affect with the location of country, but with the
professionalism of designer.
The second important factor ranked by respondents contractors was "poor
documentation and no detailed written procedures" (I.I = 68.56 %). The absence of
documentation doesn't help the engineer to deal with different events in the site, so
there is a great opportunity for project's delay. The results of Alwi et al (2002),
Abudul-Rahman et al (2006), Fong et al (2006), and Alaghbari et al (2007) are
coincide to this result, that poor documentation is one of the important factor of delay.
This agreement reflects the importance of documentation. The documentation
adequacy depends on the experience of contractor, the registration of events and
79
completed activities, which help the contractor to enhance the progress, then to
deliver the project on time.
Table 4.12 : Design and Documentation factors that influencing time overruns
Design and Documentation factors contractor consultant owner
II Rank II Rank II Rank
Incomplete drawings 71.59 1 52.78 5 62.10 2
Poor documentation and no detailed written
procedures 68.56 2 59.26 2 63.71 1
Lack of designer's experience 65.53 3 48.15 6 54.84 6
Unclear specifications 65.53 3 67.59 1 56.45 4
Poor design 64.39 5 42.59 8 52.42 7
Delays in design work / lack of design
information 64.39 5 55.56 3 55.65 5
Not using systematic procedures 64.39 5 44.44 7 62.10 2
Slow drawing revision and distribution 61.36 8 53.70 4 49.19 8
Lack of designer's experience (I.I = 65.53 %) was ranked as the third factor to cause
delay in this group. This reason of time overruns is one of the clearest factors that
cause delay. The lack of designer's experience cause many problems such as;
difficulty of execution, incomplete drawings, inaccuracy of tender documents and
unsafe design, which collectively give strong chance to project delay.
Respondents contractors considered the unclear specifications (I.I = 65.53 %) as the
third factor that cause delay in this group. The unclear specification is considered as a
prime reason to make disputes between all parties of the project, each party try to
interpret the specification according to his understanding, so disputes may occur. This
result coincide with the results of Alwi et al (2002), and Assaf et al (2006). The
suitable description of this agreement that the specification is one of the most
important component of the regardless to geographical location.
80
Table 4.12 shows that respondents contractors ranked the "slow drawings revision and
distribution" (I.I = 61.36 %) as the least factor that cause delay. The most appropriate
interpretation of this rank is that the slow revision of drawing isn't a major obstacle
for the execution of work and doesn't affect the productivity of workers.
Consultants view
Table 4.12 shows that the respondents consultants ranked unclear specification (I.I =
67.59 %) as the first important factor to cause delay in this category. This result is in
full conformity with the respondent contractors, but in the case of consultant, the
proportion of the importance index is higher than contractor, which means that
consultant are more technically aware of these elements and give them greater priority
than others.
The second factor to cause delay was poor documentation and no detailed written
procedure ( I.I = 59.26 %). This result is in full conformity with the respondents
contractors, but in the case of consultant, the value of the importance index is higher
than contractor, which means that consultant is more technically aware of these
elements and gives them greater priority than others. The third factor ranked by
consultant was delays in design work / lack of design information ( I.I = 55.56 %).
This is a strong indication of the importance of design completion before the
tendering phase. Since the design is a part of the first phases of the project, any delay
in design process would certainly affect the time schedule for completing the project.
The respondents consultants as shown in table 4.12 ranked the poor design (I.I =
42.59 %) as the least factor to cause delay in this category. Consultant considers that
poor design doesn't affect the delay of the project. This view is significantly true,
because the design is executed at the early phase of the project, so any problem can be
solved before the beginning of project's construction.
Owners view
Table 4.12 shows that the respondents owners ranked the poor documentation and no
detailed written procedure (I.I = 63.71 %) as the first factor to cause delay in this
category. The second important factor was Incomplete drawings (I.I = 62.10 %). This
result is identical in terms of order with the contractor and consultant, which support
81
the importance of these factors. Not using systematic procedures (I.I = 62.10 %) also
is the second factor for time overruns ranked by owner. These results emphasis the
need to use modern methods and procedure of documentation process, it is possible to
use modern technologies such as sophisticated computer programs and internet in
organizing the documents of project. Respondents owners as shown in table 4.12
ranked the slow drawings revision and distribution (I.I = 49.19 %) as the least factor
of delay in this category, this result is identical in terms of order with contractors.
Spearman rank correlation coefficient of the " design and documentation" group
Table 4.13 presents the spearman correlation coefficient for group "design and
documentation" among contractor, owner and consultant. For this group, the
correlation coefficient between contractor and owner equals to 0.759 with P-value
(Sig.) = 0.014. The P-value is less than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is
a significant relationship between contractor and owner. The correlation coefficient
between contractor and consultant equals to 0.189 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.327 The P-
value is greater than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is insignificant
relationship between contractor and consultant. In addition, the correlation coefficient
between owner and consultant equals to 0.131 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.379. The P-
value is greater than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is insignificant
relationship between owner and consultant. Table 4.13 : Correlation test of design and documentation group among contractor, consultant and owner
Group
Contractor
and owner P-Value
Contractor
and
consultant P-Value
Owner and
consultant P-Value
Correlation
coefficient
Correlation
coefficient
Correlation
coefficient
Design and
Documentation
0.759 0.014* 0.189 0.327 0.131 0.379
* Correlation is significant at 0.05 significance level.
82
4.3.7 Group 7: Materials related factors Contractors view
Table 4.14 shows that respondents contractors ranked "lack of materials in markets"
in the first position with importance index (I.I = 90.53 %), which indicates the high
importance of materials in the project. Lack of materials in markets is one of the
clearest factors that cause delay of the project. In Gaza Strip and according to
extraordinary political and economic situation, there are great difficulties to get
materials, specially because the borders of Gaza Strip is controlled by Israeli
occupation.
This result coincide with results of Ogunlana et al (1996), Abudul-Rahman et al
(2006), Sambasivan and Soon (2007), and Alaghbari et al (2007) that the lack of
materials is one of the important causes of delay. But the result of Mezher et al
(1998), Alwi et al (2002), Odeh and Battaineh (2002), Assaf et al (2006), and Fong et
al (2006) are in contradiction with this result. In the Saudi Arabia, Jordan, China,
Indonesia and Lebanon, there isn't any problem of materials. These countries have an
a great international markets, they can get the materials of construction easily. In
Gaza Strip the markets are limited and borders closure increases the problems of
materials.
The second important factor ranked by respondents contractors was "the shortage of
construction materials at site" (I.I = 90.15 %). Contractor should have their own stores
in order to be able to store required construction materials to the project. This
behavior protects the contractor from any shortage of materials. The closures will lead
to shortage of construction materials. If the contractor was not well prepared for such
situation, the project will be delayed.
The research results of Ogunlana et al (1996), Abudul-Rahman et al (2006),
Sambasivan and Soon (2007), and Alaghbari et al (2007) coincide with this result,
that the shortage of construction materials in site is very important factor of delay.
This result reflect the importance of materials in the construction process. The results
of Mezher et al (1998), Alwi et al (2002), Odeh et al (2002), Assaf et al (2006), and
Fong et al (2006) contravenes with this result. The surveyed places of these
83
researchers have international opened markets, which means that the construction
materials are available.
Table 4.14 : Materials related factors that lead to time overruns
Materials related factors contractor consultant owner
II Rank II Rank II Rank
Lack of materials in markets 90.53 1 81.48 3 91.13 1
Shortage of construction materials at site 90.15 2 65.74 7 87.10 2
Delay of material delivery to site 89.77 3 87.96 1 82.26 3
low quality of materials 76.52 4 70.37 4 75.00 5
No adherence with materials standards that is
storage in the site 76.14 5 85.19 2 78.23 4
Poor material handling on site 73.86 6 65.74 7 70.16 6
Inappropriate / misuse material 72.73 7 69.44 5 62.9 8
Poor procurement programming of materials 70.45 8 66.67 6 63.17 7
"Delay of materials delivery to site" (I.I = 89.77 %) was ranked as the third factor to
cause delay in this group. Any delay in the supply of materials to the site means that
there is mismanagement of contractor. The failure of supplying materials on time
mean that contractor will lose the efforts of human resources and also lose the time of
execution, then the delay will occur. The research results of Alwi et al (2002),
Alaghbari et al (2007) gave similar result that " the delay of materials delivery to the
site" is important factor of delay, but the results of Mezher et al (1998), Al- Khalil et
al (1999), Chan et al (2002), and Assaf et al (2006) contravenes with this result.
Table 4.14 shows that respondents contractors ranked the "poor procurement of
materials" (I.I = 70.45 %) as the least factor that cause delay. The most appropriate
interpretation of this rank is that the procurement procedures of materials are well
defined for workers. Any defect in these procedures could be treated quickly. In this
case, there is little chance of project's delay.
Consultants view
Table 4.14 shows that the respondents consultants ranked the delay of materials
delivery to site (I.I = 87.96 %) as the first factor to cause delay in this category. This
result is in full conformity with the respondents contractors but in case of consultant,
84
the value of the importance index is higher, which means that consultant more
technically aware of these elements and gives them greater priority.
The second factor to cause delay was "no adherence with materials standards that is
strong in the site" (I.I= 85.19 %). The lack of commitment of specifications of
materials is one of the most obvious factors to cause delay. Since the contractor looses
time during the replacement of rejected materials with another accepted materials. In
the case of using these materials, the consultant will reject these activities and the
contractor is forced to rework the related activities. All of previous reasons can cause
delay of project.
The third factor ranked by consultants was the lack of materials in markets (I.I =
81.48 %). This is a strong indication of importance of this factor. This result is in full
conformity with the respondent contractors but in the case of consultant, the value of
the importance index is higher, which means that the consultants are more aware of
these elements and give them greater priority.
The respondents consultants as shown in table 4.14 ranked the "shortage of
construction materials at site" (I.I = 65.74 %) and the poor materials handling on site
(I.I = 65.74%) as the least factors to cause delay at this category. The interpretation of
this result that the labour and the staff of contractor are aware to the importance of
materials such as; method of use, handling, and how to best utilize of these materials,
so regarding to this factor, the problems are rare, and the chance of delay is also rare.
Owners view
Table 4.14 shows that the respondents owners ranked the "lack of materials in
markets" (I.I = 91.13 %) as the first factor to cause delay in this category, and the
second factor was shortage of construction materials at site (I.I = 87.1 %). And the
third factor to cause delay was the delay of materials delivery to site, (I.I = 82.26 %).
This result is identical in terms of order with the contractor and consultant, which
support the importance of these factors.
Respondents owners as shown in table 4.14 ranked the "inappropriate / miss use
materials" (I.I = 62.90 %) as the least factor of delay in this category. As mentioned
before, the misuse of materials is also considered as ineffective factor of delay. In
85
Gaza Strip the labour are aware of construction materials usage and the labour has
well understanding of the importance of these materials for work execution and how
to best utilize these materials. In this case the problems of project's delay are rare.
Spearman rank correlation coefficient of the " materials" group
Table 4.15 shows the spearman correlation coefficient for group "materials" among
contractor, owner and consultant. For this group, the correlation coefficient between
contractor and owner equals to 0.923 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.001. The P-value is less
than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is a significant relationship between
contractor and owner. The correlation coefficient between contractor and consultant
equals to 0.457 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.128. The P-value is greater than the level of
significance, 0.05α = , so there is insignificant relationship between contractor and
consultant. In addition, the correlation coefficient between owner and consultant
equals to 0.499 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.104. The P-value is greater than the level of
significance, 0.05α = , so there is insignificant relationship between owner and
consultant. Table 4.15 : Correlation test of materials group among contractor, consultant and owner
Group
Contractor
and owner P-Value
Contractor
and
consultant P-Value
Owner and
consultant P-Value
Correlation
coefficient
Correlation
coefficient
Correlation
coefficient
Materials 0.923 0.001* 0.457 0.128 0.499 0.104
* Correlation is significant at 0.05 significance
4.3.8 Group 8: Execution related factors Contractor views
Table 4.16 shows that respondents contractors ranked "the price escalation of
materials and for manpower" in the first position with importance index (I.I = 75.00
%). The elevated prices of materials and manpower lead the contractor to search for
86
alternatives. In this case, the contractor spend a long duration to find these
alternatives, which affects the time of project's completion. On the other hand, the
escalation of materials prices de accelerates of project progress, then the delay to be
occur. This result contravenes with the result of Ogunlana et al (1996), that price
escalation of materials and for manpower is important factor of delay. In Thailand the
economic level and availability of materials differ from the situation of Gaza. In Gaza
Strip, the prices changes radically according to political situation, but in Thailand the
escalation of prices is low.
The second important factor ranked by respondents contractors was "inappropriate
construction method" (I.I = 72.35 %) . It's very important for contractor to put method
of statement at the beginning of project, this method of statement should contain
activities relationships along with the required resources for each activity. This
method should be flexible and to be updated according to the progress of project. This
result coincide with Mezher et al (1998), Alwi et al (2002), and Odeh and Battaineh
(2002), that the inappropriate construction method is one of important factor of delay.
This agreement reflect the importance of this factor. The construction methods aren't
affected by geographical location, but affected by performance of contractor's
personnel.
"The poor equipment choice/infective equipment" (I.I = 68.18 %) was ranked as the
third factor to cause delay in this group. This result reflect the importance of
equipments for work execution, so contractor must have adequate experience in
choosing the appropriate equipment to be used in the project. Failure of selection of
equipment would affects the time of the project. The research results of Mezher et al
(1998), Alwi et al (2002), and Odeh and Battaineh (2002) contravenes with this result
that, poor equipment is one of the important factors that cause delay. In Lebanon,
Jordan and Indonesia, it's so easy to get the required equipment, these countries have
a free borders.
87
Table 4.16 : Execution related factors that lead to time overruns
Execution related factors contractor consultant owner
II Rank II Rank II Rank
Price escalation of materials and for manpower 75.00 1 72.22 1 69.35 2
Inappropriate construction methods 72.35 2 72.22 1 74.19 1
poor equipment choice/ infective equipment 68.18 3 60.19 4 54.84 5
Highly bureaucratic organization 67.80 4 49.07 6 58.87 4
Project construction complexity 64.02 5 67.59 3 64.52 3
Lack of a strong organizational culture 60.61 6 55.56 5 51.61 6
Too much overtime for labour 57.58 7 37.96 7 47.50 7
Table 4.16 shows that the respondents contractors ranked the "too much over time of
labour" (I.I = 57.58 %) as the least factor to cause delay. The most appropriate
interpretation of this rank is that the over time working hours is rare in Gaza Strip,
even the identification of official working hours is fuzzy. This make workers to feel
injustice, so the contractor is aware to this problem and can solve such problems in
proper ways.
Consultants view
Table 4.16shows that the respondents consultants ranked the "price escalation of
materials and manpower" ( I.I = 72.22 %) as the first factor to cause delay at this
category, and the first factor also cause delay was inappropriate construction method
(I.I = 72.22 %). This result is in full conformity with the results of the respondent's
contractors, this similarity of opinions reflect the importance of this factor. The third
factor ranked by consultants was the project construction complexity ( I.I = 67.59 %).
This is a strong indication that the construction is a complex industry.
The respondents consultants as shown in table 4.16 classified the high quality of
failure needed "the too much overtime for labour" (I.I = 37.96 %) as the least factor to
cause delay at this category. This result is in full conformity with the results of the
respondent's contractors, this similarity of opinions reflects the importance of this
factor.
88
Owners view
Table 4.16 shows that the respondents owners ranked the "inappropriate method" (I.I
= 74.19 %) as the first factor to cause delay in this category, and the second important
factor was price escalation of materials and for manpower (I.I = 69.35 %). This result
is identical in terms of order with the contractor and consultant, which support the
importance of these factors. Project construction complexity (I.I = 64.52 %) is the
third factor of time overruns ranked by owners. This result is identical in terms of
order with the consultant, this similarity of opinion reflect the importance of this
factor.
Respondents owners as shown in table 4.16 ranked the "too much over time for
labour" (I.I = 47.50 %) as the least important factor of delay at this category. This
result is in full conformity with the respondents contractors and consultants, this
similarity of opinions reflect the non importance of this factor.
Spearman rank correlation coefficient of the "execution" group
Table 4.17 shows the spearman correlation coefficient for group "execution" among
contractor, owner and consultant. For this group, the correlation coefficient between
contractor and owner equals to 0.836 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.010. The P-value is less
than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there a significant relationship between
contractor and owner. The correlation coefficient between contractor and consultant
equals to 0.768 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.022. The P-value is less than the level of
significance, 0.05α = , so there exists a significant relationship between contractor
and consultant. In addition, the correlation coefficient between owner and consultant
equals to 0.871 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.005. The P-value is less than the level of
significance, 0.05α = , so there is a significant relationship between owner and
consultant.
89
Table 4.17: Correlation test of execution group among contractor, consultant and owner
* Correlation is significant at 0.05 significance level.
4.3.9 Group 9: Labour and equipment factors Contractor views
Table 4.18 shows that contractors respondents ranked "the shortage of equipment at
site" in the first position with importance index (I.I = 76.52 %), which indicates the
high importance of equipment to complete the project on time. Shortage of
equipments causes many problems such as; dependence on labour instead of
equipments, decline of productivity and the difficulty of execution, so the delay may
occur. Shortage of equipment in site is major cause of delay but Al- Khalil et al
(1999) and Assaf et al (2006) contravenes with this result. The study of Alwi et al
(2002) and Alaghbari et al (2007) was in Saudi Arabia, this country have an opened
markets. In case of shortage of equipment, the project will be exposed to delay. Alwi
et al (2002) and Alaghbari et al (2007) coincide with our finding, which reflect the
importance of equipment for construction industry. Table 4.18 : Factors influencing time overruns (Labor and equipments factors)
Labor and equipments factors contractor consultant owner
II Rank II Rank II Rank
Shortage of equipment at site 76.52 1 69.44 2 78.23 1
Shortage of site workers 76.14 2 63.89 3 75.00 3
Skilled labor shortage 73.48 3 58.33 6 76.61 2
Equipment availability and failure 70.45 4 63.89 3 64.52 6
Inaccurate prediction of equipment production
rate 68.18 5 71.3 1 69.35 4
lack of maintenance for the equipment 66.92 6 61.11 5 66.13 5
Group
Contractor
and owner P-Value
Contractor
and
consultant P-Value
Owner and
consultant P-Value
Correlation
coefficient
Correlation
coefficient
Correlation
coefficient
Execution 0.836 0.010* 0.768 0.022* 0.871 0.005*
90
Table 4.18 : Factors influencing time overruns (Labor and equipments factors) (cont.)
Labor and equipments factors contractor consultant owner
II Rank II Rank II Rank
Unskilled operators 65.91 7 47.22 9 60.48 7
Ageing of site workers 53.41 8 51.85 8 54.03 8
Different political and factional affiliation of
workers 35.98 9 57.41 7 32.26 9
The second important factor ranked by respondents contractors was the shortage of
site workers (I.I = 76.14 %). The labour market in Gaza Strip is busy due to high level
of unemployment, but the contractors often relies on small number of them to perform
project's activities. The physical and psychological burden of labour is much; the
problem become more complex due to low wages of labour. This result coincide with
the result of Ogunlana et al (1996). Construction industry is human incentive, means
that the human resources is the prime resource for construction. So any shortage of
human resource will definitely leads to delay.
"The skilled labour shortage" (I.I = 73.48 %) was ranked as the third factor to cause
delay in this group. This reason of time overrun is one of the clearest factors that
cause delay. The skilled labour affects the level of quality, facilitate the handing of the
completed works and perform the work successfully, therefore shortage of skilled
labour cause delay of project.
The results of Mezher et al (1999) and Alaghbari et al (2007) gave similar results, that
the skilled labour shortage is a major cause of delay, but Abudul-Rahman et al (2006),
Assaf et al (2006) and Lo et al (2006) didn't coincide with this result.
Table 4.18 shows that respondents contractors ranked the "different political and
factional affiliation of workers" (I.I = 35.98 %) as the least factor that cause delay.
The most appropriate interpretation of this rank is that Gaza Strip characterized with
high political fluctuation, but due to miserable economic situation, high levels of
unemployment, and poverty, the workers tend to avoid any possibility of losing their
work. The workers are then avoid any political conflicts at site.
91
Consultants view
Table 4.18 shows that the respondents consultants ranked "inaccurate prediction of
equipment production" (I.I = 71.30 %) as the first factor causes delay in this category.
Failure to predict the production rate of equipment is one of important reason for
delay, it causes many problems due to the negative impact of this inaccurate
predication, including errors in time schedule, the number of required equipments and
resources required at the project. The second factor to cause delay was "the shortage
of equipment at site" (I.I= 69.44 %). This result is in full conformity with the results
of the respondent's contractors, this similarity of opinions reflects the importance of
this factor.
The third important factor ranked by consultants was "the shortage of site workers"
(I.I = 63.89 %). This is a strong indication of importance of workers in project
success. This result is in full conformity with the results of the respondent's
contractors, this similarity in opinions support the results of the study, and emphasis
the importance of this factor. The respondents consultants as shown in table (4.10)
classify the "unskilled operator" (I.I = 47.22 %) as the least factor to cause delay at
this category. This result shows that the operator don't have any interference in a
delay, those operators perform specific functions in the site. In the case of delay, it is
not necessary that the operator cause the problem of delay.
Owners view
Table 4.18 shows that the respondents owners ranked the shortage of equipment at
site (I.I = 78.23 %) as the first factor to cause delay in this category. The second factor
was skilled labour shortage (I.I = 76.61 %), and the shortage of site workers (I.I =
75.00 %) was the third factor of time overruns ranked by owner. These results are
identical in terms of order with the contractor and consultant, which support the
importance of these factors. Respondents owners as shown in table (4.18) ranked
different political and factional of workers (I.I = 32.26 %) as the least factor of delay
at this category. This result is in full conformity with the respondents contractors.
This similarity of opinions reflects the importance of this factor.
92
Spearman rank correlation coefficient of the " labour and equipment" group
Table 4.19 presents the spearman correlation coefficient for group "labour and
equipment" among contractor, owner and consultant. For this group, the correlation
coefficient between contractor and owner equals to 0.977 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.000.
The P-value is less than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is a significant
relationship between contractor and owner. The correlation coefficient between
contractor and consultant equals to 0.438 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.119. The P-value is
greater than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is insignificant relationship
between contractor and consultant. In addition, the correlation coefficient between
owner and consultant equals to 0.482 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.095. The P-value is
greater than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is insignificant relationship
between owner and consultant.
Table 4.19: Correlation test of labour and equipment group among contractor, consultant and
owner
* Correlation is significant at 0.05 significance level.
4.3.10 Group 10: Contractual relationship factors Contractors view
Table 4.20 shows that respondents contractors ranked "the major disputes and
negotiations" in the first position with importance index (I.I = 71.97%). Disputes are
one of the important reasons of delay, it generate mistrust among parties, lack of
commitment to instructions by contractor, and complicated procedure in handing the
completed activities by consultant. These events at site put all parties of project under
stress, and then the delay may occur. This result coincide with Sambasivan and Soon
Group
Contractor
and owner P-Value
Contractor
and
consultant P-Value
Owner and
consultant P-Value
Correlation
coefficient
Correlation
coefficient
Correlation
coefficient
Labor and
equipment 0.977 0.000* 0.438 0.119 0.482 0.095
93
(2007), that the major disputes and negations is one of major factors of delay. At any
time, or in any place, the disputes destroy the relations between project's parties, then
as a result; the delay will occur.
Table 4.20 : Contractual relationship factors that lead to time overruns
Contractual relationship factors contractor consultant owner
II Rank II Rank II Rank
Major disputes and negotiations 71.97 1 88.89 1 72.58 1
Mistakes and discrepancies in contract
documents 68.94 2 73.15 2 70.97 2
Inappropriate overall organizational structure
linking- all parties to the project 68.56 3 72.22 3 68.55 3
Inappropriate type of contract used 64.39 4 46.30 4 52.42 4
* Correlation is significant at 0.05 significance level.
The second important factor ranked by respondents contractors was "mistakes and
discrepancies in contract documents" (I.I = 68.94 %). Any mistakes in the contract
between owner and contractor will expose the project to additional variations, also
any discrepancy opens the gate to disputes and arguments. In this case the contractor
may execute some activities in wrong way, then the consultant rejects this work.
These conditions together can affect the progress of project.
"Inappropriate overall organization structure linking all parties to the project" (I.I =
68.56 %) was ranked as the third factor to cause delay in this group. This reason of
time overruns is one of the clearest factors that cause delay. There must be an efficient
organizational structure, which the company can allocate individuals at the specific
locations, as well as giving special responsibilities according to the works. In these
conditions the company may achieve the highest possible productivity, but the failure,
will lead to break up of ideas and responsibilities among workers, thus the delay may
take place. The result of Odeh and Battaineh (2002) is coincides with this result, that
inappropriate overall organization structure cause a delay of project. The nature of
organization structure of Gaza Strip is similar to the organization structure in Jordan,.
This agreement reflects the importance of this factor.
Table 4.20 shows that respondents contractors ranked the "inappropriate type of
contract used" (I.I = 64.39 %) as fourth factor that causes delay. This factor is
94
considered as one of major factors that causing delay in Gaza Strip. The majority of
contracts in Gaza Strip are similar in type, most institutions depends on bill of
quantity (BOQ) contract, and accordingly the duration of the project is estimated, so
this can be strongly considered as a cause of delay.
Consultants view
Table 4.20 shows that the respondents consultants ranked the "major disputes and
negotiations" (I.I = 88.89 %) as the first factor to cause delay in this category, the
second factor was "mistakes and discrepancies in contract documentation" (I.I= 73.15
%). The third factor ranked by consultant was "inappropriate overall organizational
structure linking – all parties to the project" (I.I = 72.22 %). This result is in full
conformity with the respondents contractors but in the case of consultant, the
proportion of the importance index is higher, which means that consultant are more
technically aware of these elements and assign them greater priority than others. As
shown in table 4.20 the consultants respondents classify the "inappropriate type of
contract used (I.I = 46.30 %) as fourth factor to cause delay in this category. This
result is in full conformity with the results of the respondent's contractors, this
similarity of opinions support the results of the study.
Owners view
Table 4.20 shows that the respondents owners ranked the "major disputes and
negations" (I.I = 72.58 %) as the first factor to cause delay in this category, the
second factor was "mistakes and discrepancies in contract documents" (I.I = 70.97
%). And inappropriate overall organizational structure linking all parties to the project
(I.I = 68.55 %) was the third factor of time overruns according to owner. These results
are identical in terms of order with the contractor and consultant which show the
importance of these factors. As shown in table 4.11 respondents owners ranked
inappropriate type of contract used (I.I = 52.42 %) as the least factor of delay in this
category. This result is in full conformity with the respondents contractors, and
respondents consultants, this similarity of opinions reflect the importance of this
factor.
95
Spearman rank correlation coefficient of the "contractual relationship" group
Table 4.21 presents the spearman correlation coefficient for group "contractual
relationship" among contractor, owner and consultant. For this group, the correlation
coefficient between contractor and owner equals to 0.933 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.034.
The P-value is less than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is a significant
relationship between contractor and owner. The correlation coefficient between
contractor and consultant equals to 0.998 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.001. The P-value is
less than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is a significant relationship
between contractor and consultant. In addition, the correlation coefficient between
owner and consultant equals to 0.951 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.025. The P-value is less
than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is a significant relationship between
owner and consultant.
Table 4.21 : Correlation test of contractual relationship group among contractor, consultant and
owner
Group
Contractor
and owner P-Value
Contractor
and
consultant P-Value
Owner and
consultant P-Value
Correlation
coefficient
Correlation
coefficient
Correlation
coefficient
Contractual
relationship 0.933 0.034* 0.998 0.001* 0.951 0.025*
* Correlation is significant at 0.05 significance level.
4.3.11 Group 11: Government relations factors Contractors view
Table 4.22 shows that respondents contractors ranked "the slow permits by
government agencies" in the first position with importance index (I.I = 72.73 %), and
the second factor ranked by contractor's respondents was bureaucracy in government
agencies (I.I = 70.45 %). "Building regulations" with (I.I = 60.98 %) was ranked as
the third factor to cause delay in this group. This result shows that some laws to give
permission to start work is difficult, as well as regulations of government in issuing
permission, or facilitate transactions contribute to the delay of project. In Gaza Strip,
96
these factors don't affect much on delay, except the delay of building permits and
drilling. The apathy of government employees cause this type of delay.
Research result of Ogunlana et al (1996) is contravenes with this result, that slow
access of issuing permits by governmental agencies are one of major factors of delay.
The governmental laws in Thailand are different from laws in Gaza Strip. So this
affects the efficiency of permits issuing process.
Table 4.22 : Government relations factors that influence time overruns
Government relations contractor consultant owner
II Rank II Rank II Rank
Slow permits by Govt. agencies 72.73 1 58.33 2 31.45 3
Bureaucracy in Government agencies 70.45 2 55.56 3 41.94 2
Building regulations 60.98 3 68.52 1 48.39 1
Consultants view
Table 4.22 shows that respondents consultants ranked the "building regulations" (I.I =
68.52 %) as the first factor to cause delay in this category, the second factor to cause
delay was slow permits by government agencies (I.I = 58.33 %), the third important
factor ranked by consultant was bureaucracy in government agencies (I.I = 55.56 %).
The consultant opinion in this group is similar to the opinion of the contractor, that
there are some obstacles by government lead to the delay of project. This agreement
between the consultant and contractor demonstrates the contribution of this group to
the delay.
Owners view
Table 4.22 shows that the respondents owners ranked the building regulations (I.I =
48.39 %) as the first factor to cause delay in this category. The second factor to cause
delay was bureaucracy in government agencies ( I.I = 41.49 %), and "the slow permits
by government agencies" (I.I = 31.45 %) was the third factor for time overruns ranked
by owner. In this group the owner contravenes with the view of contractor and
consultant that these factors cause delay. This contradiction explains that government
97
doesn't break the activities of project, but the sluggishness and a lack of commitment
of the contractor lead to the delay at construction projects.
Spearman rank correlation coefficient of the " government relations" group
Table 4.23 presents the spearman correlation coefficient for group "government
relations" among contractor, owner and consultant. For this group, the correlation
coefficient among contractor and owner equals to – 0.889 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.152.
The P-value is greater than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is insignificant
relationship between contractor and owner. The correlation coefficient between
contractor and consultant equals to – 0.926 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.124. The P-value
is greater than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is insignificant relationship
between contractor and consultant. In addition, the correlation coefficient between
owner and consultant equals to 0.649 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.275. The P-value is
greater than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is insignificant relationship
between owner and consultant.
Table 4.23: Correlation test of government relations group among contractor, consultant and
owner
* Correlation is significant at 0.05 significance level.
4.3.12 Group 12: External factors Contractors view
Table 4.24 shows that respondents contractors ranked "the strikes, Israeli attacks and
border closures" in the first position with importance index (I.I = 92.80%). This
indicates the high complexability of construction industry in Gaza Strip with unstable
security situation and occupation. In the case of border closures or strikes, the
construction materials run out from markets, the price increase dramatically, and
Group
Contractor
and owner P-Value
Contractor
and
consultant P-Value
Owner and
consultant P-Value
Correlation
coefficient
Correlation
coefficient
Correlation
coefficient
Government relations -0.889 0.152 -0.926 0.124 0.649 0.275
98
suppliers may monopoly the construction materials. In case of any Israeli attack, the
projects within the attacked area stops automatically; as a result of any attack, work,
equipment or materials could be damaged and hence cause a delay.
The second important factor ranked by respondents contractors was "poor economic
conditions (currency inflation rate--- etc)" (I.I = 79.92 %). The difficult economic
situation in Gaza Strip, and the full reliance on donor to fund projects contribute to
increase the economical incapability of local community. Fluctuation of the local
currency rates and the high rates of inflation also are considered as the major factors
that affect the construction process.
Table 4.24 : External factors that lead to time overruns
External factors contractor consultant owner
II Rank II Rank II Rank
Strikes, Israeli attacks and Borders closures 92.80 1 93.52 1 96.77 1
Poor economic conditions (currency, inflation
rate, etc.) 79.92 2 81.48 2 73.39 2
Problems with neighbors 70.45 3 54.63 5 68.55 3
Poor site conditions (location, ground, etc.) 70.08 4 74.07 3 52.42 5
Changes in laws and regulations 63.64 5 59.26 4 54.84 4
Hot and cold weather (weather conditions) 59.09 6 44.44 6 52.42 5
'The problems with neighbor" (I.I =70.45 %) was ranked as the third important factor
to cause delay in this group. This result reflects the impact of neighbors and adjacent
lands on the project.. The people involved in the project may affect the progress of the
project. The use of project location by others also cause delay, so many times the
activities of project may be stopped in these cases, then the delay to may take place.
Table 4.24 shows that respondents contractors ranked the "weather conditions" (I.I =
59.09 %) as the least factor that cause delay. The Most appropriate interpretation of
this rank is that Gaza Strip has good climatic conditions, so it wouldn't be exposed to
any hurricanes or great leaps in temperature or snowfall. Therefore the weather
condition doesn't affect the execution of construction projects in Gaza Strip.
99
Consultants view
Table 4.24 shows that respondents consultants ranked "the strikes, Israeli and border
closures" (I.I = 98.52 %) as the first factor to cause delay in this category, and the
second factor causes delay was poor economic condition (currency, inflation rate, ---
etc). This result is in full conformity with the respondent contractors, but in case of
consultant, the proportion of the importance index is higher, which means that
consultant are more aware of these elements and give them greater priority.
The third factor ranked by consultants was "poor site condition (location, ground,
etc.)" (I.I = 74.07 %). The poor site condition is one of the major factors that cause
delay, but this factor depends on the type of project, whether construction or
infrastructure project or geographical location, so the delay may occur. The
respondent consultant as shown in table 4.13 classified the "weather conditions" (I.I =
44.44 %) as the least factor to cause delay at this category. This result is in full
conformity with the respondent's contractors, this similarity of opinions reflect the
importance of this factor.
Owners view
Table 4.24 shows that the respondents owners ranked "the strikes , Israeli attacks and
border closures" (I.I = 96.77 %) as the first factor to cause delay in this category, the
second factor was poor economic condition (currency, inflation rate, etc) with (I.I =
73.39 %). This result is identical in terms of order with the contractor and consultant
which support the importance of these factors. Problems with neighbors (I.I= 68.55
%) was the third factor for time overruns ranked by owner. This result is in full
conformity with the results of the respondent's contractors, this similarity in opinions
shows the importance of this factor.
As shown in table 4.24 respondents owners ranked "the poor site condition (location,
ground, etc)" and "hot and cold weather (weather conditions)" (I.I = 52.42 %) as the
least factors of delay in this group. This result is in full conformity with the
respondents contractors, and consultants. This similarity in opinions supports the
results of the study, but in the case of poor site conditions, the respondent's consultant
100
don't coincide with owner, because the location and the ground conditions of project
certainly affect the progress of project and could cause a delay.
Spearman rank correlation coefficient of the " external factors" group
Table 4.25 presents the spearman correlation coefficient for group "external factors"
among contractor, owner and consultant. For this group, the correlation coefficient
between contractor and owner equals to 0.94 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.003. The P-value
is less than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is a significant relationship
between contractor and owner. The correlation coefficient between contractor and
consultant equals to 0.921 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.005. The P-value is less than the
level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is a significant relationship between
contractor and consultant. In addition, the correlation coefficient between owner and
consultant equals to 0.747 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.044. The P-value is less than the
level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is a significant relationship between owner
and consultant. Table 4.25: Correlation test of external factors group among contractor, consultant and owner
Group
Contractor
and owner P-Value
Contractor
and
consultant P-Value
Owner and
consultant P-Value
Correlation
coefficient
Correlation
coefficient
Correlation
coefficient
External factors 0.940 0.003* 0.921 0.005* 0.747 0.044*
* Correlation is significant at 0.05 significance level
101
4.3.13 Ranking of all factors influencing time overruns (delay) from point view of contractors, consultants and owners Table 4.26 shows the rank of all factors of time overruns that have been investigated
in this research from contractor, consultant and owner point views. A total of 110
factors which influencing time overruns in Gaza Strip have been categorized into 12
groups. The rank was based on importance index values.
Table 4.26: Factors influencing time overruns from point view of contractors, consultants and
owners
Factors of time overruns Contractor Consultant Owner
I.I Rank I.I Rank I.I Rank
Strikes, Israeli attacks and border closures 92.80 1 93.52 1 96.77 1
Lack of materials in markets 90.53 2 81.48 11 91.13 2
Shortage of construction materials at site 90.15 3 65.74 41 87.10 3
Delay of material delivery to site 89.77 4 87.96 4 82.26 5
Cash problem during construction 83.08 5 92.59 2 83.06 4
Poor site management 81.06 6 87.96 4 80.65 6
Poor economic conditions (currency,
inflation rate, etc.) 79.92 7 81.48 11 73.39 19
Shortage of equipment at site 76.52 8 69.44 33 78.23 8
Equipments and tool shortage on site 76.52 8 75.93 17 70.97 24
Owner delay in freeing the contractor
financial payment's 76.52 8 38.89 102 33.06 104
Low quality of materials 76.52 8 70.37 31 75.00 14
Delay of materials approval by consultant 76.15 12 51.85 81 66.13 40
No adherence with materials standards that
is storage in the site 76.14 13 85.19 7 78.23 8
Shortage of site workers 76.14 13 63.89 46 75.00 14
Waiting time for approval of tests and Poor
inspection 75.77 15 53.70 74 70.97 24
Contract modifications (replacement and
addition of – new work to the project and
change in specifications)
75.76 16 71.30 29 67.74 36
Poor judgment in estimating time and
resources 75.00 17 53.70 74 66.13 40
102
Table 4.26 : Factors influencing time overruns from point view of contractors, consultants and
owners (cont.)
Factors of time overruns Contractor Consultant Owner
I.I Rank I.I Rank I.I Rank
Price escalation of materials and for manpower 75.00 17 72.22 24 69.35 30
Poor material handling on site 73.86 19 65.74 41 70.16 28
Poor provision of information to project
participants 73.48 20 66.67 38 66.13 40
Skilled labor shortage 73.48 20 58.33 62 76.61 11
Owner – initiated variation 73.46 22 64.81 45 48.39 92
Unethical behaviors used by contractors to
achieve the highest possible level of profit 73.08 23 77.78 14 75.81 12
Slow permits by Govt. agencies 72.73 24 58.33 62 31.45 107
Inappropriate / misuse material 72.73 24 69.44 33 62.90 56
Low productivity of labour 72.35 26 52.78 78 58.87 68
Inappropriate construction methods 72.35 26 72.22 24 74.19 17
Major disputes and negotiations 71.97 28 88.89 3 72.58 21
Inadequate construction planning 71.97 28 75.00 19 65.32 44
Inadequate managerial skills for all parties 71.97 28 65.74 41 70.16 28
Suspension of work by owner or contractor 71.97 28 83.33 10 77.42 10
Low speed of decision making within each
project team 71.97 28 62.04 49 71.77 23
Dependence on a newly – graduated engineer to
bear the whole responsibilities in the site 71.97 28 65.74 41 63.71 50
Back of follow up for the project schedule and
absence of continuous tracking. 71.97 28 72.22 24 59.68 66
Unrealistic contract durations imposed by owner 71.59 35 59.26 59 33.06 104
Incomplete drawings 71.59 35 52.78 78 62.10 58
Mistakes during construction 71.21 37 75.93 17 64.52 47
Slow of inspection and testing procedure used in
project 71.21 37 29.63 108 60.48 62
Lack of experience on the part of the
consultant's site- staff; (managerial and
supervisory personnel)
70.83 39 58.33 62 74.19 17
Slowness in giving instructions 70.83 39 40.74 101 68.55 33
Owner interference 70.83 39 52.78 78 29.03 108
103
Table 4.26 : Factors influencing time overruns from point view of contractors, consultants and
owners (cont.)
Factors of time overruns Contractor Consultant Owner
I.I Rank I.I Rank I.I Rank
Bad preparing and approval of shop drawings 70.83 39 55.56 68 65.32 44
Lack of personnel training and management
support 70.83 39 53.70 74 57.26 71
Lack of contractor's home office follows up 70.83 39 45.37 92 62.10 58
Bureaucracy in Government agencies 70.45 45 55.56 68 41.94 101
Problems with neighbors 70.45 45 54.63 73 68.55 33
Centralization of decision making process from
consultant party 70.45 45 66.67 38 70.97 24
Poor procurement programming of materials 70.45 45 66.67 38 63.71 50
Equipment availability and failure 70.45 45 63.89 46 64.52 47
Delays of payments 70.45 45 38.89 102 55.65 74
Lack of technical and managerial skills of staff 70.08 51 37.96 105 65.32 44
Poor site conditions (location, ground, etc.) 70.08 51 74.07 20 52.42 84
Poor distribution of labor 69.70 53 60.19 55 75.00 14
Lack of subcontractor's skills 69.32 54 73.15 22 67.74 36
Bad past history and reputation of the consultant
(corruption) 69.32 54 29.63 108 50.00 90
Mistakes and discrepancies in contract
documents 68.94 56 73.15 22 70.97 24
Inadequate contractor experience 68.94 56 84.26 8 61.29 61
Poor documentation and no detailed written
procedures 68.56 58 59.26 59 63.71 50
Inappropriate overall organizational structure
linking- all parties to the project 68.56 58 72.22 24 68.55 33
Insufficient number of staffs (contractor) 68.46 60 87.04 6 79.84 7
Poor equipment choice/ infective equipment 68.18 61 60.19 55 54.84 78
Lack of job security for the consultancy team 68.18 61 62.04 49 60.48 62
Inaccurate prediction of equipment production
rate 68.18 61 71.30 29 69.35 30
Rework of bad quality performance 67.80 64 74.07 20 69.35 30
Highly bureaucratic organization 67.80 64 49.07 86 58.87 68
Bad contract management by Consultant 67.42 66 37.04 107 63.71 50
Unrealistic owners initial requirements 67.05 67 59.26 59 20.16 110
lack of maintenance for the equipment 66.92 68 61.11 52 66.13 40
104
Table 4.26 : Factors influencing time overruns from point view of contractors, consultants and
owners (cont.)
Factors of time overruns Contractor Consultant Owner
I.I Rank I.I Rank I.I Rank
Contractor un commitment to consultant
instructions 66.67 69 77.78 14 67.74 36
Unskilled operators 65.91 70 47.22 90 60.48 62
Discrepancies between contract documents 65.53 71 76.85 16 63.71 50
Lack of designer's experience 65.53 71 48.15 88 54.84 78
Unclear specifications 65.53 71 67.59 36 56.45 72
Inflexibility of donor in giving appropriate
periods for project implementation 65.15 74 60.19 55 46.77 97
Little periodical sessions to address work
problems 64.77 75 45.37 92 46.77 97
Lack of unified system for contracts, general
conditions, and specifications of projects 64.77 75 42.59 97 45.83 99
Poor design 64.39 77 42.59 97 52.42 84
Delays in design work / lack of design
information 64.39 77 55.56 68 55.65 74
Inappropriate type of contract used (e.g.
traditional, design- and- build, etc.) 64.39 77 51.85 81 48.33 95
Not using systematic procedures 64.39 77 44.44 94 62.10 58
Project construction complexity 64.02 81 67.59 36 64.52 47
Uncompromising attitude between parties 64.02 81 44.44 94 63.71 50
Changes in laws and regulations 63.64 83 59.26 59 54.84 78
Spend some time to find sub-contractors
company who is appropriate for each task 63.26 84 78.70 13 66.94 39
Donor own policy in implementation
methods and characteristics of the project 63.26 84 61.11 52 50.81 89
Poor communications and misunderstanding 62.69 86 70.37 31 59.68 66
Low harmony between technician team of
contractor and consultant which may lead to
controversy between both of them
62.50 87 72.22 24 62.90 56
Use of unemployment programs in projects 62.50 87 50.93 84 75.81 12
Absence of consultant's site staff 62.50 87 41.67 99 56.45 72
Owner has no priority/ urgency to complete
the project 62.12 90 50.00 85 26.61 109
Slow drawing revision and distribution 61.36 91 53.70 74 49.19 91
105
Table 4.26 : Factors influencing time overruns from point view of contractors, consultants and
owners (cont.)
Factors of time overruns Contractor Consultant Owner
I.I Rank I.I Rank I.I Rank
Previous dispute between contractor and
consultant 61.15 92 18.52 110 54.03 81
Building regulations 60.98 93 68.52 35 48.39 92
Lack of a strong organizational culture 60.61 94 55.56 68 51.61 88
Equipment allocation problems 60.61 94 63.89 46 60.48 62
Failure in testing 60.61 94 84.26 8 73.39 19
Lack of quality assurance / control 60.61 94 38.89 102 55.65 74
Hot and cold weather (weather conditions) 59.09 98 44.44 94 52.42 84
Lack of protection of complete work 59.09 98 56.48 67 53.23 83
Often changing sub-contractors company 58.33 100 60.19 55 72.58 21
Inappropriate type of contract used (e.g.
traditional, design- and- build, etc.) 57.69 101 46.30 91 52.42 84
Too much overtime for labour 57.58 102 37.96 105 47.50 96
Insufficient contractor competition 57.20 103 61.11 52 58.87 68
Slow information flow between project team
members 56.92 104 62.04 49 48.39 92
High quality of work required 56.06 105 41.67 99 55.65 74
Inconsistency between the project and its
environmental due to donor agenda 55.68 106 58.33 62 41.13 102
High quality of work 54.55 107 48.15 88 35.48 103
Poor site safety 53.41 108 55.56 68 45.16 100
Ageing of site workers 53.41 108 51.85 81 54.03 81
Different political and factional affiliation of
workers 35.98 110 57.41 66 32.26 106
106
Spearman rank correlation coefficient of the " time overruns" group
Table 4.27 presents the spearman correlation coefficient for all of groups of time
overruns for contractor, owner and consultant. For this group, the correlation
coefficient between contractor and owner equals to 0.595 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.000.
The P-value is less than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is a significant
relationship between contractor and owner. The correlation coefficient between
contractor and consultant equals to 0.421 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.000. The P-value is
less than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is a significant relationship
between contractor and consultant. In addition, the correlation coefficient between
owner and consultant equals to 0.55 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.000. The P-value is less
than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is a insignificant relationship
between owner and consultant.
Table 4.27: Correlation test of time overruns group among contractor, consultant and owner
Group
Contractor
and owner P-Value
Contractor
and
consultant P-Value
Owner and
consultant P-Value
Correlation
coefficient
Correlation
coefficient
Correlation
coefficient
Time overrun 0.595 0.000* 0.421 0.000* 0.550 0.000*
* Correlation is significant at 0.05 significance level.
4.3.14 Comparison among contractor, consultant and owner regarding to the important factors of time overruns From table 4.28 it can be concluded that contractors, owners, and consultants are in
consensus that closure is one of the major primary causes for projects delay in Gaza
Strip. Closure of borders lead to partial or total suspension of all project activities
resulting in delay of those projects. It can be also seen that contractors, owners, and
consultants all consensus about these factors such as strikes, Israeli attacks and
borders closures, cash problem during construction, lack of materials in markets,
delay of materials delivery and poor site management are among the key of factors of
projects delay in Gaza Strip.
107
Table 4.28 : The most important factors of time overruns
Factors of time
overruns
Importance Index The Rank
Group I.I
(contractor)
I.I
(consultant)
I.I
(owner)
Rank
(contractor)
Rank
(consultant)
Rank
(owner)
Strikes, Israeli attacks
and border closures 92.80 93.52 96.77 1 1 1 External factors
Cash problem during
construction 83.08 92.59 83.06 5 2 4
Contractor's
responsibilities
Lack of materials in
markets 90.53 81.48 91.13 2 11 2 Materials
Shortage of
construction materials 90.15 65.74 87.10 3 41 3 Materials
Delay of material
delivery to site 89.77 87.96 82.26 4 4 5 Materials
Major disputes and
negotiations 71.97 88.89 72.58 28 3 21
Contractual
relationship
Poor site management 81.06 87.96 80.65 6 4 6 Contractor's
responsibilities
Insufficient number of
staffs (contractor) 68.46 87.04 79.84 60 6 7
Contractor's
responsibilities
No adherence with
materials standards 76.14 85.19 78.23 13 7 8 Materials
Inadequate contractor
experience 68.94 84.26 61.29 56 8 61
Contractor's
responsibilities
Failure in testing 60.61 84.26 73.39 94 8 19 Contractor's
responsibilities
Suspension of work
by owner or 71.97 83.33 77.42 28 10 10 Project
Poor economic
conditions (currency,
inflation rate, etc.)
79.92 81.48 73.39 7 11 19 External factors
Shortage of equipment
at site 76.52 69.44 78.23 8 33 8
Labor and
equipment
Table 4.28 shows some differences in point of view of contractors, owners, and
consultants regarding the importance of some factors affecting the delay. An example
of these differences is that contractors and owners agreed that the "shortage of
materials" is one of delay causing factors, and this is contradicting with consultant's
108
viewpoint. Another example is that consultants considered "major dispute" as a root
cause of projects delay while the matter is vice versa for both contractors and owners.
The best interpretation for such differences is that the nature of work for each party is
different. Each party feel that he exerted his almost efforts to avoid project delay.
Each party deals with delay process in order to avoid delay responsibility. Contractors
always consider the shortage of materials and borders closures as the main factors of
projects delay, while consultants usually pertains to managerial and decision making
related factors as the main causes of delay. For owners, they are fluctuated according
to their interest and sometimes highly agreed with contractors and slightly with
consultants, and sometimes vice versa.
4.3.15 Ranking of factors influencing time overruns from point view of all respondents of contractors, consultants and owners.
Table 4.29 shows the rank of all factors of time overruns that have been investigated
in this thesis from all respondents point views. Table 4.29 : Factors influencing time overruns due to the point view of all respondents
(contractors, consultants and owners)
The factors
I.I
Rank
Group
Strikes, Israeli attacks and Border closures 93.95 1 External factors Lack of materials in markets 88.71 2 Material Delay of material delivery to site 87.50 3 Material Cash problem during construction 85.16 4 Contractor's responsibilities Shortage of construction materials at site 84.07 5 Material Poor site management 82.46 6 Contractor's responsibilities No adherence with materials standards that is storage in the site 78.63 7 Material
Poor economic conditions (currency, inflation rate, etc.) 78.63 7 External factors Major disputes and negotiations 75.81 9 Contractual relationship Suspension of work by owner or contractor 75.81 9 Project Insufficient number of staffs (contractor) 75.41 11 Contractor's responsibilities Lack of equipment 75.40 12 Labor and equipment Equipments and tool shortage on site 75.00 13 Contractor's responsibilities Low quality of materials 74.80 14 Material Unethical behaviors used by contractors to achieve the highest possible level of profit 74.80 14 Contractor's responsibilities
Shortage of site workers 73.19 16 Labor and equipment Price escalation of materials and for manpower 72.98 17 Execution Inappropriate construction methods 72.78 18 Execution Contract modifications (replacement and addition of – new work to the project and change in specifications) 72.78 18 Owner's responsibility
109
Table 4.29 : Factors influencing time overruns due to the point view of all respondents
(contractors, consultants and owners) (cont.)
The factors
I.I
Rank
Group
Poor material handling on site 71.17 20 Material Inadequate construction planning 70.97 21 Professional Management Skilled labor shortage 70.97 21 Labor and equipment Mistakes during construction 70.56 23 Contractor's responsibilities Inadequate contractor experience 70.36 24 Contractor's responsibilities Mistakes and discrepancies in contract documents 70.36 24 Contractual relationship Poor provision of information to project participants 70.16 26 Professional Management Inadequate managerial skills for all parties 70.16 26 Professional Management Lack of subcontractor's skills 69.76 28 Contractor's responsibilities Centralization of decision making process from consultant party 69.76 28 Consultant's responsibilities
Low speed of decision making within each project team 69.76 28 Professional Management
Waiting time for approval of tests and Poor inspection 69.72 31 Consultant's responsibilities
Inappropriate / misuse material 69.56 32 Material
Rework of bad quality performance 69.56 32 Professional Management Inappropriate overall organizational structure linking- all parties to the project 69.35 34 Contractual relationship
Contractor in commitment to consultant instructions 69.35 34 Contractor's responsibilities
Inaccurate prediction of equipment production rate 69.15 36 Labor and equipment
Failure in testing 68.95 37 Contractor's responsibilities
Poor distribution of labor 68.95 37 Contractor's responsibilities Lack of experience on the part of the consultant's site- staff; (managerial and supervisory personnel) 68.95 37 Contractor's responsibilities
Back of follow up for the project schedule and absence of continuous tracking 68.95 37 Professional Management
Dependence on a newly –graduated engineer to bear the whole responsibilities in the site 68.55 41 Contractor's responsibilities
Delay of materials approval by consultant 68.29 42 Consultant's responsibilities Poor judgment in estimating time and resources 68.15 43 Professional Management Poor procurement programming of materials 67.94 44 Material Spend some time to find sub-contractors company who is appropriate for each task 67.54 45 Contractor's responsibilities
Equipment availability and failure 67.54 45 Labor and equipment Discrepancies between contract documents 67.54 45 Project Problems with neighbors 66.53 48 External factors Poor site conditions (location, ground, etc.) 66.53 48 External factors Bad preparing and approval of shop drawings 66.13 50 Professional Management lack of maintenance for the equipment 65.45 51 Labor and equipment Poor documentation and no detailed written 65.32 52 Design and Documentation Owner – initiated variation 65.24 53 Owner's responsibilities
110
Table 4.29 : Factors influencing time overruns due to the point view of all respondents
(contractors, consultants and owners) (cont.)
The factors
I.I
Rank
Group
Incomplete drawings 65.12 54 Design and Documentation Project construction complexity 64.92 55 Execution Lack of job security for the consultancy team 64.92 55 Consultant's responsibilities low productivity of labour 64.72 57 Contractor's responsibilities
Low harmony between technician team of contractor and consultant which may lead to controversy between both of them
64.72 57 Contractor's responsibilities
Slowness in giving instructions 63.71 59 Consultant's responsibilities Lack of personnel training and management 63.71 59 Professional Management Unclear specifications 63.71 59 Design and Documentation Poor communications and misunderstanding 63.62 62 Contractor's responsibilities Use of unemployment programs in projects 63.31 63 Contractor's responsibilities Poor equipment choice/ infective equipment 63.10 64 Execution Lack of contractor's home office follows up 63.10 64 Professional Management Often changing sub-contractors company 62.30 66 Contractor's responsibilities Lack of technical and managerial skills of staff 61.90 67 Consultant's responsibilities Highly bureaucratic organization 61.49 68 Execution Equipment allocation problems 61.29 69 Contractor's responsibilities Changes in laws and regulations 60.48 70 External factors Unskilled operators 60.48 70 Labor and equipment Delays in design work / lack of design 60.28 72 Design and Documentation Bureaucracy in Government agencies 60.08 73 Government relations Bad contract management by Consultant 59.88 74 Consultants responsibility Delays in payment 59.88 74 Consultants responsibility Donor own policy in implementation methods and characteristics of the project 59.68 76 Project
Uncompromising attitude between parties 59.68 76 Contractor's responsibilities Building regulations 59.48 78 Government relations Slow of inspection and testing procedure used in 59.48 78 Professional Management Not using systematic procedures 59.48 78 Design and Documentation Inflexibility of donor in giving appropriate periods for project implementation 59.48 78 Project
Slow permits by Govt. agencies 59.27 82 Government relations Unrealistic contract durations imposed by owner 59.27 82 Owner's responsibilities Lack of designer's experience 59.07 84 Design and Documentation Insufficient contractor competition 58.47 85 Contractor's responsibilities Inappropriate type of contract used 57.46 86 Contractual relationship Owner delay in freeing the contractor financial 57.46 86 Owner's responsibility Lack of a strong organizational culture 57.26 88 Execution Lack of protection of complete work 57.06 89 Contractor's responsibilities Slow drawing revision and distribution 56.65 90 Design and Documentation
Poor design 56.65 90 Design and Documentation
111
Table 4.29 : Factors influencing time overruns due to the point view of all respondents
(contractors, consultants and owners) (cont.)
The factors
I.I
Rank
Group
Owner interference 56.45 92 Owner's responsibilities Absence of consultant's site staff 56.45 92 Consultant's responsibilities Little periodical sessions to address work problems 56.05 94 Consultant's responsibilities Slow information flow between project team members 55.89 95 Project Bad past history and reputation of the consultant (corruption) 55.85 96 Consultant's responsibilities
Lack of unified system for contracts, general conditions, and specifications of projects
55.28 97 Owner's responsibilities
Lack of quality assurance / control 54.64 98 Consultant's responsibilities Hot and cold weather (weather conditions) 54.23 99 External factors Inappropriate type of contract used (e.g. traditional, design- and- build, etc.) 54.10 100 Project
Ageing of site workers 53.23 101 Labor and equipment High quality of finishes needed 52.82 102 Project Inconsistency between the project and its environmental due to donor agenda 52.62 103 Project
Poor site safety 51.81 104 Project Unrealistic owners initial requirements 51.41 105 Owner's responsibilities Too much overtime for labour 50.81 106 Execution Owner has no priority/ urgency to complete the project 50.60 107 Owner's responsibility Previous dispute between contractor and consultant 50.00 108 Consultants responsibility High quality of work 48.39 109 Owner's responsibility Different political and factional affiliation of workers 39.72 110 Labor and equipment
Table 4.29 shows that all respondents ranked "strikes, Israeli attacks and borders
closures" in the first position. This result reflect the effect of this factor on time
overruns. The second factor ranked by all respondents was "lack of materials". This
result clarifies the main role of materials to finish the project one time. The results as
shown in table 4.29 illustrate that the three parties (contractors, consultants and
owners) agreed that "the borders closures", "material related factors", "cash problems"
"mismanagement of project" and "the constrains of resources" were the most
important factors that cause projects delay. The most important factors of delay as
shown in table 4.29 was discussed and analyzed in the previous paragraphs at this
chapter.
112
4.4 Groups influencing time overruns at construction projects Table 4.30 shows the rank of 12 groups that influencing time overruns (delay) at
construction projects in Gaza Strip, according to the viewpoints of contractors,
consultants and owners. Table 4.30 : Groups influencing time overruns at construction projects
Group
Importance Index
(Contractor)
Importance Index
(Consultant)
Importance Index
(Owner)
I.I Rank I.I Rank I.I Rank
Material 80.02 1 74.07 1 76.31 1
External factors 72.66 2 67.90 4 66.40 3
Professional Management 71.63 3 59.43 8 64.88 5
Owner's responsibilities 68.55 4 52.98 11 37.79 12
Contractual relationship 68.47 5 70.14 2 66.13 4
Consultant's responsibilities 68.28 6 43.30 12 60.36 7
Government relations 68.06 7 60.80 6 40.59 11
Contractor's responsibilities 67.57 8 70.09 3 68.3 2
Execution 66.50 9 59.26 9 60.23 8
Design and Documentation 65.72 10 53.01 10 57.06 9
Labor and equipment 65.24 11 60.49 7 64.07 6
Project 60.59 12 61.21 5 53.07 10
4.4.1 Materials The materials group of delays was ranked very high by all parties (contractors,
consultants and owners). This result is due to the lack of required resources in Gaza
Strip. Most of construction materials are imported from other countries, especially
Israel and Egypt. It is worth mention that the three parties (contractors, consultants
and owner) ranked "the lack of materials in markets", and "shortage of construction
materials at site" among all causes of delay in this survey. Closures of borders is
considered as most important factor causes the shortage and lack of construction
materials, this result reflects the extraordinary political situation in Gaza Strip
4.4.2 External Factors The "external factors" group of delay was ranked high by all parties (contractors,
consultants and owners). This category consist of six factors causing delay, two of
them are "strikes, Israeli attacks and borders closures" and "poor economic conditions
113
(currency, inflation rate, etc)". The three parties agreed that border closures is the
major factor of delay. Gaza Strip is an occupied territory that suffers from bad
political situation, successive strikes, and closure of borders which are under Israeli
control. Frequent closures of borders lead to shortage of materials and equipment
which are necessary for construction processes. Also closures lead to escalate the
prices of these materials and eventually result in economic inflation side. Closure of
borders largely contributes to the paralysis of construction related activities and
consequently leads to projects delay. On the other hand, closure of borders makes
traders monopolize materials and equipment needed for construction operations. As a
result of bad political situation, donors may suspended or terminate the working
projects, or even may stop their donation for Gaza Strip projects.
4.4.3 Professional management The "professional management" group of delay factor was ranked high by contractors,
relatively high by owners and low by consultants. In this group, contractor ranked the
"poor judgment in estimating time and resource" as the major factor, consultants in
this group considered the inadequate construction planning as the highest, but owners
ranked low speed of decision making within each project team as the first factor. It
seems that the contractors and owners acknowledged that professional management
plays an important role in the construction process. It's shown that there is serious
weakness in construction management in Gaza Strip and the industry suffers lack of
professionalism. Many reputable engineering companies and construction firms don't
have a human resources department to handle professionals and staff training.
Therefore, many existing engineers and skilled personnel are in a desperate need to
develop their skills.
4.4.4 Owner’s responsibilities The owner responsibilities group of delays was ranked high by contractors, low by
consultant and very low by owners. This is mainly due to owner's financial issues and
owner's interference which are considered very critical to contractor. In this group the
opinion of contractors was close to the opinion of consultants. Specially for the
factors of contract duration imposed by owner and the owner interference. The
consultant contravenes with contractor for the factor of financial payments.
114
Contractors always interest of payments to complete the project on time. The
payments also help the contractors to empower the cash. Owner didn't believe that he
contributes the delay, the same thing for contractor and consultant responsibilities.
4.4.5 Contractual relationship Both consultants and owners ranked this group causing delay high, contractors ranked
this group causing delay relatively high. The three parties ranked "major disputes and
negotiations" and "mistakes and discrepancies in contract" as the most important two
factors in this group. The consultant's opinions show that the importance index of
these factors is higher than owners and contractors. Relatively, factors relating to
organization disputes, mistakes and discrepancies in contract were more important to
consultant and owner, especially for public projects in Gaza Strip. The rank of this
group indicates the weakness of the construction companies in understanding the
contract conditions, and also reflects the professionalism of consultant and contractor
in dealing with contractual relationship variables.
4.4.6 Consultant's responsibilities The group of consultant responsibilities related factors received moderate rank by
both contractors and owner, and ranked very low by consultants. As expected, the
consultant considered that the responsibilities of consultant in delay is limited, but the
contractor consider the delay of materials approval by consultant, waiting time for
approval by consultant, waiting time for approval of tests and poor inspection are the
most important factors in this category. This could be attributed to the owners who are
willing to delegate to the consultants enabling them to manage the project effectively.
It should be noted that none of the causes in this category appeared in any of the lists
of ten most important causes.
4.4.7 Government relationship Both contractors and consultants ranked the government relationship group moderate,
the owners ranked this group of delay low. The surveyed owners in this research were
public owners, public owners like government departments or different ministries do
not face regular obstacles to issue work permits or any government process.
Contractors ranked "the slow permits by governmental agencies" as the major cause
115
of delay in this group, but the consultants ranked it as the second, owners as the least
important cause, it's clear that obtaining permits is not a part of consultants or owners
responsibilities. In Gaza Strip, contractors face many obstacles with government
specially the routine procedures to issue permits, the changing of governments rules,
un fair dealing with contractors, the weakness of governmental decision making
process and so on. These problems force contractors to be delayed in construction
process.
4.4.8 Contractor's responsibilities The contractor's responsibilities group of delay factors was ranked high by both
owners and consultants and relatively low by contractors. The three parties
(contractor, consultant and owner) agreed that cash problem during construction and
poor site management at the first and second ranking in this group. This indicates that
the cash problem is more critical of any construction project than other variables in
the group of contractor responsibilities. As expected the contractors didn't concentrate
on the contact factors of their work such as "failure in testing", "lack of protection of
complete work" and "insufficient contractor competition", so the contractor's
responsibilities group was ranked low by contractors. Hence it can be concluded that
all parties agree that "cash flow" or, in general, "financial problems" is the major
cause of delay in this group.
4.4.9 Execution Both contractors and consultants ranked the execution group low and this group was
ranked relatively low by owners. Of the seven factors, inappropriate construction
methods" and "price escalation of materials and for manpower" are the major factors
causing delay during the construction process. Price escalation of materials as
mentioned before affects the work. During the execution, specific equipment and
labour skills are required to complete construction activities. Project manager need to
consider the characteristics of the project such as the site layout, skills of personnel,
the possibility of using certain equipment, time variable and the degree of project
complexity. This result shows that the three parties (contractors, consultants and
owners) in Gaza Strip are familiar to the work execution procedures.
116
4.4.10 Design and documentation The design and documentation group of delay factors was ranked low by all parties
(contractors, consultants and owners). This result shows that this group hasn't critical
factors causing delay. The three parties' ranked unclear specification, incomplete
drawings and poor documentations major factors in this group, but with low
importance index. Documentation focused on contractor's documentation to record all
activities during the construction project. Historical data regarding to contractors
performance is very important issue in order to locate the weakness in performance,
and hence allows the contractor to avoid these weakness to improve their
performance. The low ranking of this group reflect that the three parties have
sufficient experience in designing projects, and preparing the documentations of
project.
4.4.11 Labour and equipment
Labour and equipment group was ranked medium by consultants and owners, and
ranked low by contractors. The contractors ranked "shortage of equipment", "shortage
of site workers" and "skilled labour shortage" as important factors, relatively the same
rank for owners and consultants. Sometimes the shortage of equipment contributes to
delay of the projects, especially when there are a large number of project executed at
the same periods. Contractors ranked most of variables at this group higher than
owner and consultant, this is probably because contractors have direct contact with
labour and equipment issues.
4.4.12 Project The project group of delay factors was ranked relatively high by consultants, low by
owners and very low by contractors. In this group, the parties (contractors, consultants
and owners) agreed that "suspension of work by owner or contractor" and
"discrepancies between contract documents" are the major factors in this group. This
agreement reflect the common point of view of the three parties, also the agreement
reflect the effects of these factors on projects delay. All variables of this group have
low importance index with respect to other factors in this survey. In Gaza Strip the
117
interest of consultant is to develop the skills of each party in order to solve any
problem related to projects delay. Owners and contractors consider that the causes of
delay related to project is rarely to occur, due to that the rank of this group was low.
4.5 Factors influencing cost overruns at construction projects Table 4.30 shows the rank of all factors of cost overruns that have been investigated
in this research from contractor, consultant and owner view points. A total of 42
factors which influencing cost overruns in Gaza Strip have been studied and
discussed. The rank was based on importance index values.
Table 4.31 : Factors influencing cost overruns from point view of contractors, consultants and
owners
Factors of cost overruns Contractor Consultant Owner
I.I Rank I.I Rank I.I Rank
Increment of materials prices due to continuous
border closures 89.39 1 94.44 2 91.13 1
Delay in construction, supply of raw Materials and
equipment by contractors 83.71 2 95.37 1 83.87 2
Fluctuations in the cost of building materials 81.06 3 87.96 6 80.65 4 Project materials monopoly by some suppliers 80.68 4 75.93 10 81.45 3 Unsettlement of the local currency in relation to
dollar value 78.79 5 88.89 4 77.42 5
Low commitment of donor to compensate any bad
result that may come from the bad economic and 78.79 5 46.30 34 62.10 23
Donor policy in Biding tender to the lowest price one 77.65 7 44.44 36 40.32 40
Design changes 76.92 8 69.44 16 75.81 6
Additional work at owner’s request 76.52 9 66.67 20 72.58 12
Resources constraint: funds and associated auxiliaries
not ready 76.52 9 89.81 3 73.39 10
Lack of cost planning/monitoring during pre-and
post contract stages 75.38 11 82.41 7 74.19 9
Improvements to standard drawings during
construction stage 75.00 12 81.48 8 72.58 12
Inadequate review for drawings and contract
documents. 74.24 13 64.81 22 73.39 10
Contractual claims, such as, extension of time with
cost claims 73.48 14 74.07 14 75.00 7
Inaccurate quantity take-off 72.73 15 75.93 10 75.00 7
118
Table 4.31: Factors influencing cost overruns from point view of contractors, consultants and
owners (cont.)
Factors of cost overruns Contractor Consultant Owner
I.I Rank I.I Rank I.I Rank
Technical incompetence, poor organizational
structure, and failures of the enterprise 71.59 16 75.00 12 62.90 22
Lack of cost reports during construction stage 71.21 17 74.07 14 65.32 17
Inadequate project preparation, planning and
implementation 70.08 18 60.19 24 70.97 14
Delays in issuing information to the contractor
during construction stage 69.70 19 60.19 24 62.10 23
Lack of coordination at design phase 68.94 20 68.52 18 60.48 28
Change in the scope of the project, in
Government policies 68.94 20 60.19 24 59.68 29
Some tendering maneuvers by contractors, such
as front- loading of rates 68.56 22 88.89 4 64.52 21
Incomplete design at the time of tender 67.42 23 57.41 29 57.26 32
Bad allocation of labour inside the site 67.42 23 68.52 18 66.94 16
Delays in decisions making by Government,
failure of specific coordinating 67.42 23 53.70 30 50.81 36
Delays in costing variations and additional
works 67.31 26 65.74 21 65.32 17
Lack of experience of project type 67.05 27 75.00 12 64.52 19
Re measurement of provisional works 66.29 28 52.78 31 67.74 15
Wrong / inappropriate choice of site 65.15 29 41.67 38 47.58 38
Omissions and errors in the bills of quantities 64.77 30 77.78 9 61.29 26
Delay in project's handing over 64.62 31 58.33 28 64.52 19
Absence of managerial programs that help in
saving materials inside the site 64.02 32 69.44 16 59.68 29
Indecision by the supervising team in dealing
with the contractor’s queries resulting in delays 63.64 33 39.81 39 62.10 23
Lack of experience of local regulation 63.64 33 62.96 23 54.84 34
Changes in owner’s brief 62.88 35 44.44 36 52.42 35
Inability of the contractor to be adopted
property with the projects environment 59.23 36 59.26 27 58.06 31
Labour unrest 57.20 37 45.37 35 60.83 27
Attracting skillful technicians for work 56.82 38 48.15 32 48.39 37
119
Table 4.31: Factors influencing cost overruns from point view of contractors, consultants and
owners (cont.)
Factors of cost overruns Contractor Consultant Owner
I.I Rank I.I Rank I.I Rank
Lack of experience of technical consultants,
inadequacy of foreign collaboration
agreements, monopoly of technology
56.82 38 26.85 41 55.65 33
Unpredictable weather conditions 54.92 40 48.15 32 44.35 39
Long period of the project maintenance period
"one year " 54.92 40 27.78 40 37.90 41
Over time work hours of supervising engineer
are paid by the contractor 52.27 42 16.67 42 32.26 42
4.5.1 Contractors view Table 4.31 shows that respondents contractors ranked "the increment of materials
prices due to continue borders closures" in the first position with importance index (I.I
= 89.39 %). Materials are considered as the backbone of construction projects, which
accounted for nearly 70 % of the total value of project (Enshassi et al 2003).
Therefore any problem of materials availability would significantly affect the progress
of project. In case of borders closures, construction materials are run out from
markets, leading to elevated prices and monopoly by suppliers, in addition, the
quantity of materials entering Gaza Strip are limited. During any closure the
construction process is suspended, so the project is exposed to cost overruns.
"Delay in construction, supply of raw materials and equipment by contractors" (I.I =
83.71 %) was ranked as the second major factor to cause cost overruns in this group.
Therefore each day of delay cost the contractor additional losses such as overhead,
cost of sub contractors and penalty. The delay of supplying necessary materials and
equipment for the work, lead to time lost, hence the cost increases. In case of delay,
the cost of required materials or equipment may increase, or these goods may run out
from the local markets, then the cost overruns may occur. This result don't coincide
with the Morris (1999), that "the delay in the construction supply of raw materials and
equipment by contractors" is one of major factors of cost overruns. Shortage of
120
materials and equipment is not familiar any where worldwide, but Gaza Strip
construction industry suffers from shortage of construction materials and equipment.
The third major factor ranked by respondents contractors was fluctuations in the cost
of building materials (I.I = 81.06 %). Fluctuation in prices has a significant impact on
cost increase. Often the contractor estimates prices of the tender according to the
present prices at local markets. It's known that the tendering phase and awarding is the
an early phase of the project, even the awarding process takes long time., so there is a
chance of price fluctuation. In case of high prices, the contractor would face the
problem of cost overruns at the execution phase. The fluctuation of prices in Gaza
Strip is associated with Israeli economy and the surrounded countries. Gaza Strip
economy is totally engaged with Israeli economy.
The research result of Chimwaso (2001) contravenes with this result, that the
fluctuations in the cost of construction materials is one of major factors to cause cost
over runs. The fluctuation in the cost of construction materials is associated with the
location of project country, the economic level, and the volume of required materials.
The result of this factor differs from country to country.
"Project materials monopoly by some suppliers" (I.I = 80.68 %) was ranked as the
fourth major factor of cost overruns by contractors in this group. Materials monopoly
by suppliers is a result of borders closures or as a result of supplying proxy of
materials to limited suppliers. So the contractor is forced to buy the required materials
or equipments at high prices. In these cases the project will be exposed to cost
overrun.
The fifth cause of cost overruns was "unsettlement of the local currency in relation to
dollar value" (I.I = 78.79 %). Gaza Strip currency is new Israeli shekel (N.I.S).
However most construction projects financing by United states dollar (US $). Any
fluctuation in the exchange rate of dollars and shekels will affect the cost of the
project. Also it's noted that most of the project expenses such as the purchase of
material, rent the equipment, the salaries of employees and other indirect costs are in
N.I.S. These results show that cost overruns will be certainly occurring at any
unsettlement of these currencies.
121
"Low commitment of donor to compensate any bad result that may come from the bad
economic and political situation" (I.I = 78.79 %) was also classified as the fifth factor
to cause cost overrun. Mostly, Gaza Strip is exposed to Israeli attacks with different
shapes, therefore the construction projects may be destroyed partially or totally by
these events. This hard political situation affects the cost of projects, especially that
most donors don't recognize contractor's damage, so the contractor is forced to
remedy the changed works from Israeli attacks on his own expense.
Table 4.31 shows that respondents contractors ranked unpredictable weather condition
(I.I = 54.92 %) as one of the least three factors that cause cost overruns. Gaza Strip
has good climatic conditions, so it isn't exposed to any hurricanes or great leaps in
temperature or snow fall, therefore the weather condition doesn't affect the execution
of construction project and doesn't contribute to make any damages of these projects.
The long period of the project maintenance period "one year" (I.I = 54.92 %) was also
ranked as one of the least three factors that cause cost overruns. The period of
maintenance isn't used to be long, then the project isn't exposed to substantial damage
through this short period. So the cost of maintenance is low, this result reflects the
low impact of maintenance period on the cost overruns of the project.
Respondents contractors as shown in table 4.31 classified the "over time work hours
of supervisor engineer are paid by the contractor" (I.I = 52.27 %) as the least factor to
cause cost overruns. This result shows that the contractor benefit from the presence of
supervisor engineer at the overtimes durations. The contractor can complete some
works, which help to complete the project on time, for example; the presence of
supervisor engineer in the overtime duration enables the contractor to cast some of
ready concrete elements. This criterion help the contractor deliver the project on time,
so this factor doesn't contribute to cost overruns.
4.5.2 Consultants view Table 4.31 shows that the respondents consultants ranked "the delay in construction,
supply of raw materials and equipments by contractor" (I.I = 95.37 %) as the first
factor cause cost overruns at this category, and the second important factor was "
increment of materials prices due to continues border closures" (I.I = 94.44 %). This
122
result is identical in terms of order with the contractor, which support the importance
of these factors.
"Resource constraints; funds and associated auxiliaries not ready" (I.I = 89.81 %) was
the third factor of cost overruns ranked by consultant. The required resources of
project (materials, equipment, people and others) are considered as backbone for the
construction project. In case of any unavailability of these resources, such as shortage
of cash, the project would be exposed to cost overruns. The contractor who has
sufficient cash doesn’t have any resources constrains, and vice versa. Contractor also
should store the needed resource of project, in order to keep resource reserve due to
closures, lack of resource, prices fluctuation ----etc. So the contractor is forced to
purchase these resource with high prices. This result didn't coincide with the result of
Morris, (1999). The justification of this contradiction is that, the resources constraints
in India are limited. In Indian, the local materials are opened and the economy is
stable.
Respondents consultants consider "some tendering maneuvers by contractors, such as
front – loading of rates" (I.I = 88.89 %) as the fourth factor to cause cost overruns in
this group. The loading of rates by contractors in the pricing of tender is one of the
dangerous problems. Sometimes the owner - according to contract may cancel some
items in the bill of quantities. In this case the contractor loose the profits of these
items with profits of loading rated of the cancelled items. Sometimes the front loading
rate are huge, then the cost overruns would be also huge.
Unsettlement of the local currency in relation to dollar value ( I.I = 88.89 %) was also
ranked as the fourth factor to cause cost overruns at this group, and the sixth one was
fluctuation in the cost of building materials (I.I = 87.96 %). These results are in full
conformity with the respondent contractors but in case of consultant, the proportion of
the importance index is higher, which means that consultant focusing more on these
elements and give them greater priority.
Table 4.31 shows that respondents consultants ranked "the long period of the project
maintenance period "one year" (I.I = 27.78 %) as one of the last three factors that
cause cost overruns. This result is in full conformity with the results of the
respondent's contractors, this similarity in opinions supports the results of the study.
123
"The lack of experience of consultants, inadequacy of foreign collaboration
agreements, monopoly of technology" (I.I = 26.85 %) was ranked as one of the last
three factors that cause cost overruns. The most appropriate interpretation of this rank
is that the experience of the consultants in Gaza Strip is entirely appropriate for
projects to be executed, for that reason, this factor is not a cause of cost overruns.
Also the mega projects implemented in Gaza Strip are limited, the donor require that
the local consultant should make join venture with international consultant. Usually
these projects are executed ideally, and in the absence of cost overruns.
Respondents consultants as shown in table 4.31 classified "over time work hours of
supervising engineer paid by contractor" (I.I = 16.67 %) as the least factor to cause
cost overruns. This result is in full conformity with the respondent contractors but in
case of consultant, the proportion of the importance index is higher, which means that
consultant focusing more on these elements and give them greater priority.
4.5.3 Owners view Table 4.31 shows that respondents owners ranked "the increment of materials prices
due to continues borders closures" (I.I = 91.13 %) as the first factor to cause cost
overruns in this category. "The delay in construction, supply of raw materials and
equipment by contractors" (I.I = 83.87 %) was the second factor to cause cost
overruns, the third one was "project materials monopoly by some suppliers" (I.I =
81.45 %), "fluctuations in the cost of building materials" (I.I = 80.65 %) was ranked
as the fourth factor of cost overruns and the fifth factor ranked by owner was
"unsettlement of the local currency in relation to dollar value" (I.I = 77.42 %). This
result is identical in terms of order with the contractor and consultant, which support
the importance of these factors.
"Design changes" (I..I = 75.81 %) was ranked as the sixth factor in this category.
Design changes are considered as one of major factor for increasing the cost of
project. As any modification in the design will affect the budget allocated for the
project, the volume of required materials, type of required materials and needed
labour. Sometimes, design changes cause the rework of already completed items,
which means the increase of project duration and to loose of materials. Thus the cost
124
overruns will be present at this case. The research results of Kaming et al (1997) and
Chimwaso (2001) are coincide with this result that design changes is one of the major
factors to cause cost overruns. This agreement reflects the importance of these factors
regardless to geographical location.
Table 4.31 shows that respondents owners ranked the "donor policy in building tender
to the lowest price one" (I.I = 40.32 %) as one of the last three factors. It's not
necessary that the lowest price contractor could bear cost overrun. The contractor try
to estimate a suitable cost for the project's items with suitable profit, so it's not logical
that contractor estimate the prices roughly. Thus the policy of donor in awarding
tender to the lowest price contractor is not a major factor for cost overruns. Also it's
known that most of projects in Gaza Strip are awarded to the lowest price, and not all
are exposed to cost overruns. The least two factors ranked by owner in this category
were "long period of the project maintenance period "one year" (I.I = 37.90 %) and
“over time work hours of supervising engineer are paid by contractor" (I.I = 32.26 %).
These results are in full conformity with the respondent's contractors and consultants,
this similarity in opinions support the results of the study.
Spearman rank correlation coefficient of the "cost overruns" group
Table 4.32 presents the spearman correlation coefficient for group of cost overruns
among contractor, owner and consultant. For this group, the correlation coefficient
between contractor and owner equals to 0.792 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.000. The P-
value is less than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is a significant
relationship between contractor and owner. The correlation coefficient between
contractor and consultant equals to 0.737 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.000. The P-value is
less than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is a significant relationship
between contractor and consultant. In addition, the correlation coefficient between
owner and consultant equals to 0.819 with P-value (Sig.) = 0.000. The P-value is less
than the level of significance, 0.05α = , so there is a significant relationship between
owner and consultant.
125
Table 4.32: Correlation test of cost overruns group among contractor, consultant and owner
Group
Contractor
and owner P-Value
Contractor
and
consultant P-Value
Owner and
consultant P-Value
Correlation
coefficient
Correlation
coefficient
Correlation
coefficient
Cost overruns
0.792 0.000* 0.737 0.000* 0.819 0.000*
* Correlation is significant at 0.05 significance level.
4.5.4 Ranking of factors influencing cost overruns from point view of all respondents of contractors, consultants and owners. Table 4.33 shows the rank of all factors of cost overruns that have been investigated
in this thesis from all respondents point views. Table 4.33 : Factors influencing cost overruns due to the point view of all respondents (contractors, consultants and owners)
The factors II Rank
Increment of materials prices due to continuous border closures 90.93 1
Delay in construction, supply of raw Materials & equipment by contractors 86.29 2
Fluctuations in the cost of building materials 82.46 3
Unsettlement of the local currency in relation to dollar value 80.65 4
Project materials monopoly by some suppliers 79.84 5
Resources constraint: funds and associated auxiliaries not ready 78.63 6
Lack of cost planning/monitoring during pre-and post contract stages 76.61 7
Improvements to standard drawings during construction stage 75.81 8
Design changes 75.00 9
Inaccurate quantity take-off 73.99 10
Contractual claims, such as, extension of time with cost claims 73.98 11
Additional work at owner’s request 73.39 12
Inadequate review for drawings and contract documents 71.98 13
Some tendering maneuvers by contractors, such as front- loading of rates 71.98 13
Lack of cost reports during construction stage 70.36 15
Technical incompetence, poor organizational structure, and failures of the enterprise 70.16 16
126
Table 4.33 : Factors influencing cost overruns due to the point view of all respondents
(contractors, consultants and owners) (cont.)
The factors II Rank
Lack of experience of project type 68.15 17 Inadequate project preparation, planning and implementation 68.15 17 Low commitment of donor to compensate any bad result that may come from the bad economic and political situation 67.54 19
Bad allocation of labour inside the site 67.54 19
Omissions and errors in the bills of quantities 66.73 21
Lack of coordination at design phase 66.73 21
Delays in costing variations and additional works 66.46 23
Delays in issuing information to the contractor during construction stage 65.73 24
Change in the scope of the project, in Government policies 64.72 25
Absence of managerial programs that help in saving materials inside the site 64.11 26
Remeasurement of provisional works 63.71 27
Delay in project's handing over 63.21 28
Incomplete design at the time of tender 62.70 29
Lack of experience of local regulation 61.29 30
Donor policy in Biding tender to the lowest price one 61.09 31
Delays in decisions making by Government, failure of specific coordinating 60.28 32
Inability of the contractor to be adopted property with the projects environment 58.94 33
Indecision by the supervising team in dealing with the contractor’s queries resulting in delays 58.06 34
Changes in owner’s brief 56.25 35
Wrong / inappropriate choice of site 55.65 36
Labour unrest 55.49 37
Attracting skillful technicians for work 52.82 38
Unpredictable weather conditions 50.81 39 Lack of experience of technical consultants, inadequacy of foreign collaboration agreements, monopoly of technology 50.00 40
Long period of the project maintenance period "one year" 44.76 41 Over time work hours of supervising engineer are paid by the contractor 39.52 42
Table 4.33 shows the ranking of factors that influencing cost overruns due to the point
views of all respondents. The respondents of contractors, consultants and owners
ranked the "increment of materials prices due to continuous border closures" in the
first position at this table. "delay in construction, supply of raw materials and
equipment by contractors" was ranked as the second important factor of cost overruns.
127
The results as shown in table 4.33 illustrate that the three parties (contractors,
consultants and owners) agreed that "the increment of materials prices due to
continuous border closures", "delay in construction", "fluctuations in cost of
materials", "economic related factors", :resources constraint" , "design changes and
mismanagement of project activities" were the most important factors influencing cost
overruns. The discussion and analysis of most important factors of cost overruns was
mentioned in the previous paragraphs at this chapter.
4.6 Degree of agreement among the Owners, Contractors, and Consultants for time and cost overruns groups To determine whether there is a significant degree of agreement among the three
parties (owners , contractors and consultants) Kendall's coefficient of concordance is
used as a measure of agreement among raters. Each case is a judge or rater and each
variable is an item or person being judged. For each variable, the sum of ranks is
computed. Kendall's W, ranges between 0 (no agreement) and 1 (complete
agreement).
To determine whether there is a degree of agreement among the levels of each of the
factors affecting the performance of construction projects for each owners, contractors
and consultants. Kendall's coefficient of concordance shows the degree of agreement
on a zero to one scale is
( )
( )
22
212U 3 m n n 1
Wm n n 1− −
=−
(1)
Where:
( )n 2
i 1U R
== ∑ ∑
n = number of factors; m = number of groups; j = the factors 1,2,…,N.
The calculated Kendall's Coefficients of Concordance for each field are listed in table
4.34.
Null Hypothesis: H0 : There is insignificant degree of agreement among the owners ,
contractors and consultants.
128
Alternative Hypothesis: H1 : There is significant degree of agreement among the
owners , contractors and consultants.
Table 4.34 shows the results of Kendall's coefficient of concordance for each group.
As shown in table (4.34), for material group and external factor group, the p-values
(Sig.) are less than α = 0.05 (α is the level of significance) then we reject the null
hypothesis, H0. Therefore, we conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support
the alternative hypothesis, H1. Hence, there is a degree of agreement among the
owners, contractors and consultants.
Table 4.34 :Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance
#
Group W Chi-Square P-value Decision
1 Project 0.174 64.206 1.000 Don't reject H0
2 Contractor's responsibilities 0.379 139.851 0.142 Don't reject H0
3 Consultant's responsibilities 0.189 69.741 1.000 Don't reject H0
4 Owner's responsibilities 0.127 46.863 1.000 Don't reject H0
5 Professional Management 0.303 111.807 0.756 Don't reject H0
6 Design and Documentation 0.179 66.051 1.000 Don't reject H0
7 Material 0.536 197.784 0.000* Reject H0
8 Execution 0.248 91.512 0.985 Don't reject H0
9 Labor and equipment 0.285 105.165 0.876 Don't reject H0
10 Contractual relationship 0.300 110.700 0.779 Don't reject H0
11 Government relations 0.135 49.815 1.000 Don't reject H0
12 External factors 0.419 154.611 0.028* Reject H0
13 Time overrun 0.333 122.877 0.486 Don't reject H0
14 Cost overrun 0.362 133.578 0.243 Don't reject H0
15 ALL together 0.346 127.674 0.368 Don't reject H0
* The agreement is significant at level of significant α = 0.05
For the groups of; project related factors, contractor responsibility, consultant
responsibility, owner responsibility, professional management, design and
documentation, execution, labour and equipment, contractual relationship, and
government relations, the p-values (Sig.) are greater than α = 0.05 (α is the level of
significance) then the null hypothesis is not rejected, H0. Therefore, it is concluded
that there is insufficient evidence to support the alternative hypothesis, H1. Hence,
129
there is insignificant degree of agreement among the owners, contractors and
consultants.
On other hand, for the combined groups of time overruns, the group of cost overruns,
and the combined groups of time and cost overruns, the p-values (Sig.) are greater
than α = 0.05 (α is the level of significance) then the null hypothesis is not rejected,
H0. Therefore, it is concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support the
alternative hypothesis, H1. Hence, there is insignificant degree of agreement among
the owners, contractors and consultants.
130
CHAPTER FIVE: CASE STUDIES
This chapter presents five case studies collected from actual project implemented in
the Gaza Strip. The data was collected via interviews with the project's contractors,
consultants and owners. Site visits and reviewing project documents are the core of
data for all case studies Summarized data of the collected information was presented
by concentrating on the factors influencing time and cost overruns of these projects.
After presentation of all opinions of contractors, consultants and owner, conclusion
and recommendation has been concluded at the end of this chapter.
5.1 Case study No 1: Construction of AL - Jnena clinic center
5.1.1 Project background This case illustrates one of projects which experienced time and cost overruns in Gaza
Strip. The project faced a lot of obstacles and problems that face every party of the
project with variant degree of responsibility for each party. The project consists of
building two floors, each floor area about 540m2 with complete finishes, the project
includes landscape works about 2000m2. The project implementation activities started
on 18/7/1998 in AL – Jnena area (Rafah) and finished on 20/8/1999. (Table 5.1 shows
the characteristics of project). At the end of the project, there was a number of
meeting and exchanged letters between consultant and contractor to detect the real
cause of delay and how to justify such a delay.
Table 5.1 : The characteristics of construction of AL – Jnena clinic center
Project Name Construction of AL- Jnena clinic center.
Description of Project The building consist of two floor, each floor area about 540.00 m2 with complete finishes, the project includes landscape works about 2000.00 m2
Project Location AL- Jnena – Rafah area.
Target Population In total, the project would serve 5000 people.
District South Gaza Strip.
Allocated Budget ($): 580,000.00 $
131
Table 5.1: The characteristics of the project of case study No. 1 (cont.)
Planned Contract Amount ($) 560,000.00 $
Actual Contract Amount ($) 572,500.00 $
Cost overruns ($) 12,500.00$
Planned Project Duration 12 months.
Actual Project Duration 13 months and 2 days
Delay 32 days
Designer Abu – Shahla company
Consultant PECDAR
Owner Ministry of health
In this case, the three project's parties (contractor, consultant and owner) were
interviewed, they evaluate the case through their point of views, and according to
scientific study, recommendations and lessons learned were introduced.
5.1.2 Project History
5.1.2.1 Bidding stage In this project seven contractors have submitted tenders, four of them were classified
as class 1 and the rest were classified as class 2. Complete bidding documents were
provided including general and private condition, technical specification, bill of
quantity and drawings. Bidding process continued for 21 days, passing through all
steps; advertising, bid sell, site visit, per–bid meeting, tender submitting and tender
opening meeting. The tenders were opened and financial offers were announced
through open meeting attending by concerned parties' representative including the
contractors.
132
5.1.2.2 Evaluation stage The evaluation process consist of the following steps:
1. Preliminary examination process. The step included checking, by Yes or No,
the legibility, submitting bid security, bid completeness and substantial
responsiveness of the contractor.
2. Prices corrections.
3. Price review (check of summations for BOQ items).
4. Technical advisor follow up the correction of evaluation process and results
according to job creation program guidelines and conditions.
Based on evaluation result, table 5.2 summarizes the final bid prices for contractor. Table 5.2 : The characteristics of the participated companies of project No. 1
S.N Contractor Name Class Preliminary examination
Amount of contract ($)
1 A 1 Pass 560,000.00
2 B 1 Pass 581,145.00
3 C 1 Pass 605,320.00
4 D 1 Pass 573,125.00
5 E 2 Pass 585,952.00
6 F 2 Pass 596,222.00
7 G 2 Pass 611,450.00
5.1.2.3 Awarding stage According to the bid evaluation report prepared by the employer, revised by
consultant, the contract was awarded to the lowest price contractor (contractor as
shown in table 5.2). Owner and consultant considered contractor (A) as the lowest
evaluated responsive bidder.
5.1.3 Assessment
5.1.3.1 Contractor opinion The contractor showed at his reports that project delayed and the cost overruns were
according to the following reasons:
• Continuous changes in specifications and drawing due to incomplete drawings
and the addition of some floors.
133
• Owner's delay in freeing the payments of contractor, up to 3 months for each
one. Payments were signed in the donated country, so this contributes to the
delay process.
• Limitation of consultant work from 8.00 AM to 3.00 PM and stopping of work
at 3.00 PM.
• Bad weather especially in winter.
• The holidays through the contract. Periods were about 12 days.
• Fluctuation in the cost of construction materials and this due to instability of
new Israeli shekels (N.I.S) as a currency and due to partial closures of Gaza
Strip borders.
So contractor considered the delays as justified delay.
5.1.3.2 Consultant opinion The consultant staff considered that the most important causes of delay are the
following:
• Owner's delay in freeing the payments of contractor. Payments were signed in
the donated country, so this contributes to the delay process.
• Bad weather especially in winter.
• Lack of materials delivery to the site. Absence of time schedule that is
effective for delivery of materials to the site, and also poor management of the
project.
• Cash problem during construction. This is because contractor was working in
more than one project and he had poor financial to do that.
5.1.3.3 Owner opinion Owner opinion can summarized as following:
• Slow delivery of materials by contractor to the site. Absence of time schedule
that is effective for delivery of materials to the site, and also poor management
of the project.
• Mismanagement of consultant and contractor to complete work on time.
• Some disputes between the consultant and contractor. This is because
contractor was delivered materials that differ from those approved by
consultant which lead to disputes. Consultant also was committed just to
134
official working hours without doing extra work. It is very important to
mention that contractor has the right to claim compensation for any loss he
hold due to payment delay more than the agreed period in the contract.
5.1.3.4 Comments
At the end of the project, there were a number of communication letters between the
project's parties to know whether the delay was justified or unjustified and to see if
the owner can be claimed for delay or not. Finally the technical committee of the
project decided that the responsibility of delay was shared between contractors and
owners, and so the delay was justified without any penalties.
5.1.3.5 Researcher opinion
Through showing the reasons of delay and cost overruns from the viewpoints of all
parties (contractor, consultant and owner), we can say that contractors reasons were
not convincing and also vacations and holidays must be taken into consideration. At
the same time, the weak ability of contractor to import the required materials to the
site was the greatest contributor factor for delay, thus it was supposed to impose
penalties for delay on contractor. This type of delay is considered as non excusable
delay.
5.2 Case study No 2: Construction of financial ministry building in Gaza Strip
5.2.1 Project background This case illustrates one of projects which experienced time and cost overruns in Gaza
Strip. The project faced a lot of obstacles and problems that face every party of the
project with variant degree of responsibility for each party. The project consists of
building with 9 stories, each story area was 1000 m2 The project implementation
activities started on 19/9/1999 in Gaza city and finished on 20/5/2003. (Table 5.3
shows the characteristics of project). At the end of the project, there was a number of
meeting and exchanged letters between consultant and contractor to detect the real
cause of delay and how to justify such a delay.
135
Table 5.3 : The characteristics of construction of financial ministry building in Gaza Strip
Project Name Construction of financial ministry building in Gaza Strip.
Description of Project The building consist of 9 stories, each story area was 1000m2 , with complete finishes.
Project Location Gaza city.
Target Population Contractors, traders, the employees of Palestinian National Authority.
District Gaza.
Allocated Budget ($): 2,850,000.00 $
Planned Contract Amount ($) 2,800,150.00 $
Actual Contract Amount ($) 2,835,430.00 $
Cost overruns ($) 35,280.00 $
Planned Project Duration 36 months.
Actual Project Duration 44 months and 4 days
Delay 244 days
Designer Saboor and EL-Fara company
Consultant The ministry of public works
Owner Palestinian National Authority (P.N.A)
In this case, the three project's parties (contractor, consultant and owner) were
interviewed, they evaluate the case through their point of views, and according to
scientific study, recommendations and lessons learned were introduced.
5.2.2 Project History
5.2.2.1 Bidding stage In this project six contractors have submitted tenders, all of them were classified as
class 1. Complete bidding documents were provided including general and private
condition, technical specification, bill of quantity and drawings. Bidding process
136
continued for 21 days, passing through all steps: advertising, bid sell, site visit, per –
bid meeting, tender submitting and tender opening meeting. The tenders were opened
and financial offers were announced through open meeting attending by concerned
parties' representative including the contractors.
5.2.2.2 Evaluation stage The evaluation process consist of the following steps:
1. Preliminary examination process. The step included checking, by Yes or No,
the legibility, submitting bid security, bid completeness and substantial
responsiveness of the contractor.
2. Prices corrections.
3. Price review (check of summations for BOQ items).
4. Technical advisor follow up the correction of evaluation process and results
according to job creation program guidelines and conditions.
Based on evaluation result, table 5.4 summarizes the final bid prices for contractor.
Table 5.4 : The characteristics of the participated companies of project No. 2
S.N Contractor Name Class Preliminary examination
Amount of contract ($)
1 A 1 Pass 2,800,150.00
2 B 1 Pass 2,920,445.00
3 C 1 Pass 2,830,985.00
4 D 1 Pass 2,860,765.00
5 E 1 Pass 2,864,122.00
6 F 1 Pass 2,910,636.00
7 G 1 Pass 3,020,190.00
8 H 1 Pass 2,900,880.00
9 I 1 Pass 2,891,690.00
5.2.2.3 Awarding stage According to the bid evaluation report prepared by the employer, revised by
consultant, the contract was awarded to the lowest price contractor (contractor as
137
shown in table 5.4). Owner and consultant considered contractor (A) as the lowest
evaluated responsive bidder.
5.2.3 Assessment
5.2.3.1 Contractor opinion The contractor showed at his reports that project delayed and the cost overruns were
according to the following reasons:
• Borders closures of Gaza Strip. This is due to the beginning of AL-Aqsa
Intifada.
• Shortage of materials in local markets. This is due to restriction of materials
entry by Israeli party on Gaza Strip people.
• Incomplete and discrepancies in the specifications of project. Since the project
was very wide, there was some contradictions between contract items. The
low experience of consultant also affects this thing.
• Delay of materials approved by consultant. This is due to centralization of
consultant decision and independence on site engineers. Also routine
performance which require manager signature on all items of the contract,
affect this issue.
• Owner delay in freeing the contractor financial payments.
• Increment of materials prices due to closures.
• Additional works at owner's request. This was due to incomplete drawings and
bill of quantities which lead to many changes.
• Unsettlement of local currency in relation to dollar value.
So contractor considered the delays as justified delay.
5.2.3.2 Consultant opinion The consultant staff considered that the most important causes of delay are the
following:
• Israeli attacks, strikes and borders closures.
• Lack of material delivery by contractor to the site.
• Cash problem during construction. This is because of weak financial liquidity
of the contractor. This was also due to the large – size activities in the project,
138
as well as due to the affect of AL-Aqsa Intifada on dollar value against shekel.
Also Banks are hesitated about some contractors which put them in a bad
financial situation.
• Failure in testing , then rework to some activities. This was due to contractor
use of inconsistent blocks which were refused then reworked. The same thing
was quite regarding health related materials.
• Contract modification (specification, BOQ and additional works).
• Inadequate construction planning by contractor. Contractor wasn't following
performance reports in the site, and also didn't update the time schedule of the
project to be a ware of delaying and accelerating factors in the project
activities.
• Price escalation of materials.
5.2.3.3 Owner opinion
Owner opinion can summarized as following:
• Inappropriate construction method by contractor
• Delay in freeing payments of contractor.
• Continuous borders closures and strikes.
• Shortage of materials due to borders closures.
• Less quality of works by contractor. This was because contractor used
materials other than those approved by supervision team which leaded to
rework at most times.
• Poor communications between the parties of project. This was because there
wasn't a variable communication network for information exchange between
workers at the site.
5.2.3.4 Comments
After evaluation of delay reasons, consultant and owner decided that contractor delay
was justified and didn't deserve any financial penalties. This was because owner and
consultant was convinced with contractor justification of delay.
139
5.2.3.5 Researcher opinion After viewing the reasons of each party, it was clear that project delay was mainly due
to the beginning of AL-Aqsa Intifada, and to a lower degree due to contractor related
factors such as bad management, low financial abilities, and environment. Contractor
to extent contributed in the delay process, so it was supposed to impose financial
penalties on the contractor and to suspend working in the project until the political
situation of Gaza Strip improve. This type of delay is considered as concurrent delay.
5.3 Case study No 3: Extension work of two elementary schools in Khanyonis
5.3.1 Project background This case illustrates one of projects which experienced time and cost overruns in Gaza
Strip. The project faced a lot of obstacles and problems that face every party of the
project with variant degree of responsibility for each party. The project included
construct of 6 classrooms and retaining walls around the schools, also maintenance
for all of two schools. The project implementation activities started on 1/10/2000 in
Khanyonis and finished on 31/5/2001. (Table 5.5 shows the characteristics of project).
At the end of the project, there was a number of meeting and exchanged letters
between consultant and contractor to detect the real cause of delay and how to justify
such a delay. Table 5.5 : The characteristics of extension work of two elementary schools in Khanyonis
Project Name Extension work of two elementary schools in khanyonis
Description of Project Construct of 6 classrooms and retaining walls around the schools, also maintenance for all of two schools.
Project Location Khanyonis
Target Population The project would serve 2000.00 students.
District Khanyonis
140
Table 5.5 : The characteristics of the project of case study No. 3 (cont.)
Allocated Budget (EURO): 300,00.00 €
Planned Contract Amount (EURO): 290,00.00 €
Actual Contract Amount (EURO): 301,120.80 €
Cost overruns (EURO) 11,120.80 €
Planned Project Duration 3 months.
Actual Project Duration 8 months
Delay 150 days
Designer Ministry of Education
Consultant PECDAR
Owner Ministry of Education
In this case, the three project's parties (contractor, consultant and owner) were
interviewed, they evaluate the case through their point of views, and according to
scientific study, recommendations and lessons learned were introduced.
5.3.2 Project History
5.3.2.1 Bidding stage In this project seven contractors have submitted tenders; three of them were classified
as class 1 and the rest were classified as class 2. Complete bidding documents were
provided including general and private condition, technical specification, bill of
quantity and drawings. Bidding process continued for 14 days, passing through all
steps : advertising, bid sell, site visit, per – bid meeting, tender submitting and tender
opening meeting. The tenders were opened and financial offers were announced
through open meeting attending by concerned parties' representative including the
contractors.
141
5.3.2.2 Evaluation stage The evaluation process consists of the following steps:
1. Preliminary examination process. The step included checking, by Yes or No,
the legibility, submitting bid security, bid completeness and substantial
responsiveness of the contractor.
2. Prices corrections.
3. Price review (check of summations for BOQ items).
4. Technical advisor follow up the correction of evaluation process and results
according to job creation program guidelines and conditions.
Based on evaluation result, table 5.6 summarizes the final bid prices for contractor. Table 5.6 : The characteristics of the participated companies of project No. 3
S.N Contractor Name Class Preliminary examination
Amount of contract (€)
1 A 1 Pass 290,000.00
2 B 1 Pass 298,122.00
3 C 1 Pass 310,845.00
4 D 1 Pass 302,560.00
5 E 2 Pass 315,128.00
6 F 2 Pass 309,745.00
5.3.2.3 Awarding stage According to the bid evaluation report prepared by the employer, revised by
consultant, the contract was awarded to the lowest price contractor (contractor as
shown in table 5.6). Owner and consultant considered contractor (A) as the lowest
evaluated responsive bidder.
142
5.3.3 Assessment
5.3.3.1 Contractor opinion The contractor showed at his reports that project delayed and the cost overruns were
according to the following reasons:
• The AL-Aqsa Intifada which have started on 28/9/2000.
• Continuous borders closures through starting the AL-Aqsa Intifada
• Cash problem during construction. This is because of weak financial liquidity
of the contract. This was also due to the large – size activities in the project, as
well as due to the affect of AL-Aqsa Intifada on dollar value against shekel.
Also Banks are hesitated about some contractors which put them in a bad
financial situation.
• Consultant's slowness in giving instructions. This was due to low experience
of the consultant who was newly graduated.
• Owner interference. Mostly the owner asked for some changes in work
characteristics and plans.
• Shortage of materials in markets. This was due to continuously partial closure
imposed on Gaza Strip at that time.
• Unsettlement of local currency in relation to the dollar value.
• Resource constraint such the funds of project. This was due to bad economic
situation as a result of AL-Aqsa Intifada.
So contractor considered the delays as justified delay.
5.3.3.2 Consultant opinion The consultant staff considered that the most important causes of delay are the
following:
• Borders closures and the shortage of materials.
• Poor judgment in estimating time and resources due to low experience of
contractor and absence of follow up the activities continuously.
143
• Poor quality of work, and always rework. It was due to failure of soil
compaction and block tests.
• Inaccurate quality take – off. This was due to modification of buildings fronts.
• Improving of standard drawings during construction phase.
5.3.3.3 Owner opinion Owner opinion can summarized as following:
• Strikes and borders closures.
• Price escalation of required materials.
• Shortage of equipment and skilled labour. Contractor was dependant on very
low number, of workers which lead to low productivity of the project. Also
contractor wasn't have enough equipment for the project.
• Discrepancies in contract documents. This was due to lack of revision of
contract items before tendering process by consultant and owner
• Contractor's claims such as extension of time with cost claims. This was
because contractor asked the owner to suspend the activities due to political
situation, but without approval.
• Fluctuation in the cost of construction materials.
5.3.3.4 Comments
After the study of contractor messages related to delay and cost overrun in the project,
the owner and consultant decided that delay was justified and there was no response
to compensate the contractor for his losses. This was done because of considering that
the delay was not only as a result of bad political situation, but also due to in
commitment of contractor toward some requirements.
5.3.3.5 Researcher opinion
From the reasons introduced by each party, we can conclude that contractor wasn't the
main reason of delay but it was due to external factors such as borders closures,
deficiency of materials, and others were the main reasons of delay. Since contractor
asked the suspension of work and there was no response for him, so he deserves a
compensation for the cost overrun that happened. This type of delay is considered as
compensated excusable delay.
144
5.4 Case study No 4: Construction of distribution ware stores houses for the ministry of social affairs
5.4.1 Project background This case illustrates one of projects which experienced time and cost overruns in Gaza
Strip. The project faced a lot of obstacles and problems that face every party of the
project with variant degree of responsibility for each party. The project consists of
distribution ware houses, of area 500m and height 6m (one story). Landscape work's
including interlocking tiles and retaining walls around the building. The project
implementation activities started on 1/4/2005 in North Gaza and finished on 7/12/2005.
(Table 5.7 shows the characteristics of project). At the end of the project, there was a
number of meeting and exchanged letters between consultant and contractor to detect
the real cause of delay and how to justify such a delay.
Table 5.7 : The characteristics of construction of distribution ware houses for the ministry of social affairs
Project Name Construction of distribution ware stores houses for the ministry of social affairs.
Description of Project
Construction of distribution ware houses, of area 500m and height 6m (one story). Landscape work's including interlocking tiles and retaining walls around the building.
Project Location North of Gaza.
Target Population Ministry of social affairs.
District North of Gaza.
Allocated Budget ($): 150,000.00 $
Planned Contract Amount ($) 133,125.00 $
Actual Contract Amount ($) 138,237.50 $
Cost overruns ($) 5112.50 $
Planned Project Duration 5 months
Actual Project Duration 7 months and 8 days
Delay 68 days
145
Designer Ministry of social affairs
Consultant Ministry of social affairs
Owner Ministry of social affairs
In this case, the three project's parties (contractor, consultant and owner) were
interviewed, they evaluate the case through their point of views, and according to
scientific study, recommendations and lessons learned were introduced.
5.4.2 Project History
5.4.2.1 Bidding stage In this project eight contractors have submitted tenders, twos of them were classified
as class 1and the rest were classified as class 2. Complete bidding documents were
provided including general and private condition, technical specification, bill of
quantity and drawings. Bidding process continued for 14 days, passing through all
steps: advertising, bid sell, site visit, per – bid meeting, tender submitting and tender
opening meeting. The tenders were opened and financial offers were announced
through open meeting attending by concerned parties' representative including the
contractors.
5.4.2.2 Evaluation stage The evaluation process consists of the following steps:
1. Preliminary examination process. The step included checking, by Yes or No,
the legibility, submitting bid security, bid completeness and substantial
responsiveness of the contractor.
2. Prices corrections.
3. Price review (check of summations for BOQ items).
4. Technical advisor follow up the correction of evaluation process and results
according to job creation program guidelines and conditions.
Based on evaluation result, (table 5.8) summarizes the final bid prices for contractor.
146
Table 5.8 : The characteristics of the participated companies of project No. 4
S.N Contractor Name Class Preliminary examination
Amount of contract ($)
1 A 2 Pass 133,125.00
2 B 2 Pass 161,855.00
3 C 2 Pass 138,650.00
4 D 1 Pass 150,226.00
5 E 2 Apologize Apologize
6 F 1 Pass 148,548.00
7 G 2 Pass 153,222.00
8 H 2 Pass 145,840.00
5.4.2.3 Awarding stage According to the bid evaluation report prepared by the employer, revised by
consultant, the contract was awarded to the lowest price contractor (contractor as
shown in table). Ministry of social affairs considered contractor (A) as the lowest
evaluated responsive bidder.
5.4.3 Assessment
5.4.3.1 Contractor opinion The contractor showed at his reports that project delayed and the cost overruns were
according to the following reasons:
• Changing of the project location by the owner that was because there was no
accreditation from authority of lands to the project site.
• Shortage of materials at the markets. This is due to continues partial closures
imposed on Gaza Strip.
• Continuous Israeli attacks to the north of Gaza and borders closures.
• Fluctuation in the cost of building materials because the prices of reinforced
steel were raised internationally.
147
• Delay of materials approval by consultant due to absence of special technical
committee to approve materials by consultant and instead of that dependence
on site engineer.
• Price escalation of materials and equipment
• Slow permits by governmental agencies. This was due to frequent strikes and
poor management in those institution.
So contractor considered the delays as justified delay.
5.4.3.2 Ministry of social affairs opinion The ministry of social affairs considered that the most important causes of delay are
the following:
• Low quality of materials, and continuous attacks to the Gaza north.
• Borders closures by Israel.
• Financial problems of contractor. This was because contractor had more than
one project, so he was facing some financial liquidity problems.
• Poor planning and mismanagement for all activities at site. Contractor was
depending on only one engineer in the site who manage all the activities of the
project without presence of project manager or supervisor, and this matter
make it difficult for the site engineer.
• Shortage of skilled labour. This was due to paying high wages for those
technician.
• Poor economic condition of Gaza Strip.
• Donor policy bidding tender to the lowest price one. Because contractor hadn't
the good C.V to implement such projects and he had never implementing a
comparable ones.
5.4.3.4 Comments The technical committee of the ministry considered the project delay was justified,
and this was because the location of the project had been changed. This change
stopped the work for 21 days . also, the bad economic situation frequent Israeli
attacks, and closure of entrances leaded to this delay, so the delay can be considered
as justified.
148
5.4.3.5 Researcher opinion After the study and evaluation of reasons introduced from contractor and ministry,
then we found that the change in project site and external factors consisted a large part
of delay. Contractor also considered as a main contributor of delay, this is due to
some factors related to contractor such as bad management, poor planning, deficiency
of materials, and financial problems. This type of delay is considered as concurrent
delay.
5.5 Case study No 5: Developing International Roads in Umm Al Naser
5.5.1 Project background This case illustrates one of projects which experienced time and cost overruns in Gaza
strip. The project was facing a lot of obstacles and problems that face every party of
the project with variant degree of responsibility for each party. The project component
was Paving of 4050 Sq. meter interlocking for carriageway, 1200 Sq. meter
interlocking for sidewalks, 900 L.m. curbstone works, including 110 L.m. sewage
pipes in addition to water and electrical works. The project implementation activities
started on 11/09/06 on Umm Al- Naser Village and finished on 18/03/07. (Table 5.9
shows the characteristics of project). At the end of the project, there was a number of
meeting and exchanged letters between Consultant and Contractor to detect the real
cause of delay and how to justify such a delay.
Table 5.9 : The characteristics of the project of case study No. 5
Project Name Developing International Roads in Umm Al Naser
Description of Project
Paving of 4050.00 Sq. meter interlocking for carriageway, 1200.00 Sq. meter interlocking for sidewalks, 900 L.m. curbstone works, including 110.00 L.m. sewage pipes in addition to water and electrical works.
Project Location Umm Al Naser – North Gaza
Target Population In total, the project would serve 4,000 people
District North Gaza
149
Table 5.9 : The characteristics of the project of case study No. 5 (cont.)
Allocated Budget (EURO) 90,000.00 €
Planned Contract Amount (EURO)
Original Contract amount : 88,965.00 € Contract amendment amount : 1,035.00 €
lActual Contract Amount (EURO) 97,820.00 €
Cost overruns (EURO) 7820.00 €
Planned Project Duration 3 months
Actual Project Duration 6 months and 7 days
Delay 97 days
Designer Ministry of Umm AL - Naser
Consultant UNDP
Owner Ministry of Umm AL - Naser
In this case, the three project's parties (contractor, consultant and owner) were
interviewed, they evaluate the case through their point of views, and according to
scientific study, recommendations and lessons learned were introduced.
5.5.2 Project History
5.5.2.1 Bidding stage In this project six contractors have submitted tenders, two of them were classified as
class 1 and the rest were classified as class 2. Complete bidding documents were
provided including general and private condition, technical specification, Bill of
quantity and drawings. Bidding process continued for 14 days, passing though all
steps: advertising, bid sell, site visit, pre-bid meeting, tender submitting and tender
opening meeting. The tenders were opened and financial offers were announced
through open meeting attending by concerned parties‘ representative including the
contractors.
5.5.2.2 Evaluation stage The evaluation process consists of the following steps:
150
1. Preliminary examination process. This step included checking, by yes or No, the
legibility, submitting bid security, bid completeness and substantial
responsiveness of the contractor.
2. Prices corrections.
3. Price review(check of summations for BOQ items).
4. Technical advisor follow up the correction of evaluation process and results
according to job creation program guidelines and conditions.
Based on evaluation result, (table 5.10) summarizes the final bid prices for contractor. Table 5.10 : The characteristics of the participated companies of project No. 5
S.N Contractor Name Class Preliminary examination
Amount of contract (€)
1 A 2 Pass 88,965.00
2 B 2 Pass 94,307.00
3 C 2 Pass 91,295.00
4 D 2 Pass 95,102.00
5 E 1 Apologize Apologize
6 F 1 Pass 89,490.00
5.5.2.3 Awarding stage According to the Bid Evaluation Report prepared by the employer, revised by UNDP,
the contract was awarded to the lowest price contractor (Contractor A as shown in
table 5.10). UNDP considered this contractor as the lowest evaluated responsive
bidder.
5.5.3 Assessment
5.5.3.1 Contractor opinion The contractor showed at his reports that project delayed and the cost overruns were
according to the following reasons:
• The work is fully stopped at the project for 6 days because of feast holiday,
• The work is fully stopped for 8 days because of Israeli attack on Bet-Hanon,
151
• 13 days because of bad weather,
• 2 days because of Al-Adha feast holiday,
• 8 days because of Interlocking tiles shortage.
• 4 days because of bad weather ,
• 17 days because of bad security situation,
• Two day because of Israeli attack on North of Gaza,
• 5 days because of delay on Making approval for base course ,
• 4 days for waiting the tests results of layers for base course,
So contractor considered the delay as justified delay.
The total number of justifying delay is 69 days, while the total number of project delay is 97 days. Other causes such as :
1- Delay in reviewing payment by UNDP staff,
2- Absence of UNDP staff because of security level situation,
3- Obstacles at site " trees and houses" ,
4- Partial closures of Gaza entrances.
5.5.3.2 Consultant opinion The Consultant staff of UNDP considered that the most important causes of delay are
the following:
• Contractor's shortage labor force,
• Contractor's shortage supervision staff,
• Lack of professionalism of contractor staff,
• Israeli attacks on Bet-Hanon,
• No corporation between inhabitants and contractor 'obstacles such as trees at
roads, old houses at roads",
• Less cooperation between municipality and contractor to remove the
obstacles,
• Foundations problem "Most of houses foundations around the roads were
shallow, so contractor was obligated to construct edge beams for theses house
resulting in delay at project,
152
• Additional works at project such as increasing the area of interlocking tiles,
these works cause delay to project for 3 days,
• Due to political situation, when Qussam Rockets were launch the Israeli army
replay with missiles, so workers run away from the site.
5.5.3.3 Owner opinion Owner opinion can summarized as following:
• Mismanagement of contractor to manage the work such as absence of staff,
labour, and Contractor him self,
• Fresh Engineer was not able to control all site activities, no other foremen at
site,
• Slow delivery of materials by contractor to site,
• Absence of UNDP staff because of security situation,
• Partial closures of Gaza entrances.
5.5.3.4 Comments Through the discussion of this case study and the inquiry of opinions for the
contractor, consultant and the owner, we can say that it is clear that there is a shared
responsibility for each party without ignorance of the out-of –control causes that can
be taken into consideration by each party such as partial closure of main entrances,
bad political and economic situation, and so on despite of that this case show that the
major responsibility of time and cost overruns can devoted to the contractor due to the
following reasons:-
• Mismanagement for all activities of project and shortage of labor force,
• Shortage of materials and failure of tests which one of most responsibilities of
contractor, so contractor find him self to paid money more than one time,
• Consultant sharing in the responsibility of time and cost overruns specially
when the consultant delay the payments of contractor, Also the absence of
consultant staff affect on the progress of work, consultant should find a
method to put replacement staff at site,
153
• Owner is only one who is responsible of obstacles at the site, the owner should
remove any obstacle at the site before and/or during the work, when the owner
was drowsed in removing the trees, houses inside the site, the contractor
progress was weak, and the contractor may paid for machine and labour
without satisfied production because of these obstacles.
• As recommendation each party of project should be cooperative in highly way
to avoid any time and cost overruns at project, because cost overruns reflect
bad result for each party.
5.5.3.5 Researcher opinion From the reasons introduced by each party, we can conclude that contractor wasn't
the main reason of delay but it was due to external factors which mentioned above, so
he is not responsible of delay. This type of delay is considered as non – compensated
excusable delay.
5.6 Summary of case studies Table 5.11 illustrates the information of the five case studies included at this chapter.
Table 5.11: Summary of cases studies information
Cost overruns value
Actual budget
Planned budget
Time overruns
Actual duration
Planned duration
Type of Project Case study
12,500.00 ($) 572,500.00 ($) 560,000.00 ($) 32 days 13 months and 2 days 12 months Construction
project Case study 1
35,280.00 ($) 2,835,450.00($) 2,800,150.00 ($) 244 days 44 months and 4 days 36 months Construction
Project Case study 2
11,120.80 (€) 301,120.80 (€) 290,000.00 (€) 150 days 8 months 3 months Construction Project Case study 3
5112.50 ($) 138,237.50 ($) 133,125.00 ($) 68 days 7 months and 8 days 5 months Construction
Project Case study 4
7820.00 (€) 97,820.00 (€) 90,000.00 (€) 97 days 6 months and 7 days 3 months Infrastructure
Project Case study 5
154
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Introduction This chapter includes the conclusions and recommendations that would help in
solving the problem of delay and cost overruns at construction projects in Gaza Strip.
The first objective of this study was to identify variables influencing construction time
and cost overruns. The second objective was to evaluate their relative importance.
Investigate the collective group perspectives on the relative significance of these
factor from owner, consultant, and contractor point view was the third objective. The
fourth one was to evaluate the degree of agreement /disagreement regarding the
ranking of these factors. The fifth objective was to evaluate the magnitudes of the
time delay, and cost increases. The sixth objective was to conduct several practical
case studies, and the last one was to formulate recommendations to improve
construction performance.
6.2 Conclusions This part of the thesis concludes the main findings as following :
6.2.1 Factors influencing time overruns (delay) This part of thesis included 12 groups of factors that influencing time overruns. The
total number of factors included among the 12 group of time overruns is 110 factors.
6.2.1.1 Project related factors Results indicated that the factor "suspension of work by owner or by contractor" has
been ranked in the first position by contractors, consultants and owners. This result
indicates the high importance of work continuity to complete the project on time. The
suspension of work creates disputes between the parties of project, and then the
sequence of completion will be affected. This agreement of opinions between
contractors, consultants and owners proves the importance of these factors in projects
delay.
155
6.2.1.2 Contractor's responsibilities Results have shown that the factor of "cash problem during construction" has been
ranked in the 1st position by the three parties (contractors, consultants and owners).
This result indicates the high importance of cash for the progress of project. Any
shortage of cash for the contractor will cause many problems such as slow progress
and work decline in productivity. Also the contractors will not be able to purchase the
needed equipment for work. More over the problem of cash also expanded to traders
and suppliers, which in turn leads to slow the work, then to occurrence of project's
delay.
6.2.1.3 Consultant's responsibilities Results show that "the delay in materials approval by consultant" factor has been
ranked as the major factor by consultant in this group. This result indicates the high
importance of each party to perform required work, The delay of materials approval
will lead to suspend the work. If the delay of materials approval was intentional or as
a result of staff lacking experience, it will also cause a delay for the project.
Results also have shown that the factor "the centralization of decision making process
from consultant party" has been ranked in 1st position by consultant and owner, with
(I.I= 66.67%) and (I.I = 70.79%) respectively. It shows the importance of consultant
decisions, the speed or slowness of these decisions and the impact of these decisions
on progress of the project.
6.2.1.4 Owner's responsibilities Results have indicated that, "owner delay in freeing the contractor financial
payments" has been ranked in 1st position by contractors at this group. Payments is
considered as the first priority to complete the project on time, as any delay of freeing
contractor payments, it will affect contractor's financial obligations. Results show that
"contract modifications (replacement and addition of –new work to the project and
change in specification) " factor has been ranked in the 1st position by consultants and
owners, with importance index (I.I = 71.3%) and (I.I = 67.74%) respectively. As any
modification in the technical specification, bill of quantities or replace any work with
another one, it would lead to disputes between the contractor's and owner's teams. To
156
solve these disputes and develop new agreements, it takes additional time that affects
the project schedule and hence affect the total duration of the project.
6.2.1.5 Professional management The results indicate the "poor judgment in estimating time and resources" has been
ranked in the 1st position by contractors, "Inadequate construction planning" has been
ranked in the 1st position by consultant. The results also show that "low speed of
decision making within each project team" factor has been ranked in the 1st position
by owner. These causes of delay belong the professional management, which prove
the importance of management for each party. In this group the respondents
concentrate on the factors that belong the planning, estimation and decision making
process.
6.2.1.6 Design and documentation Results indicate that the factor "incomplete drawing" has been ranked as the most
important factor of delay at this group by contractors. "Unclear specification" has
been ranked in the 1st position by consultant. Result also shows that "poor
documentation and no detailed written procedure" has been ranked by owners. These
results reflect the importance of design and documentation, and how affect the
progress of work or how to contribute delay of project.
6.2.1.7 Materials related factors Results indicated that the factor "lack of materials in markets" has been ranked as the
most important factor at this group, by contractor and owner. This result indicates the
high importance of materials at the project. In Gaza Strip and according to
extraordinary political and economic situation, there are great difficulties to get
materials, specially because the borders of Gaza Strip is controlled by Israeli
occupation.. Results have shown that, "delay of materials delivery to the site" has
been ranked in the 1st position at this group by consultants. Any delay in the supply
of materials to the site means that there is mismanagement of contractor. The failure
of supplying materials on time mean that contractor will loose the efforts of human
resources and also loose the time of execution, then the delay will occur.
157
6.2.1.8 Execution related factors Results show that the "poor escalation of materials and manpower" has been ranked
as the most important factor at this group, by contractor and consultant. The
escalations of materials prices decelerate of project progress, then the delay to be
occur. Result also have been shown that the factor "inappropriate construction
method" has been ranked in the 1st position by consultant and owner at this group.
6.2.1.9 Labour and equipment Results show that the "shortage of equipment at site" has been ranked in the 1st
position at this group, by contractor and owner. This result indicates the high
importance of equipment to finish the project on time, shortage of equipment cause
many problems such as; dependant on labour instead of equipments, lack of required
productivity and the difficulty of execution. The results indicate that " Inaccurate
predication of equipment production rate" has been ranked in the 1st position in this
group by consultant, with (I.I = 71.3 %).
6.2.1.10 Contractual relationship Results indicate that the factor "major disputes and negotiations" has been ranked as
the most important factor at this group by contractor, consultant and owner. Disputes
are one of the important reasons of delay, it generate mistrust among the parties, in
commitment of instructions by contractor, and complex procedure in handing the
completed activities by consultant.
6.2.1.11 Government relationship Results indicated that the factor "slow permits by government agencies" has been
ranked in the 1st position by contractor at this group. Consultant and owner ranked
the building regulation as the most important factor at this group.
6.2.1.12 External factors Results indicated that the factor "strikes, Israeli attacks and borders closures" has been
ranked in the 1st position at this group by contractor, consultant and owner. This result
indicates the high effects of construction industry in Gaza Strip with security situation
and occupation. In the case of border closures or strikes, the construction materials
158
run out from markets, the price increase dramatically, suppliers monopoly materials
of construction.
6.2.2 Top ten factors which cause time overruns according to contractors, consultants and owners views The top ten factors that cause time overruns as perceived by contractors are: "strikes,
Israeli attacks and border closures" in the 1st position, " lack of materials in markets"
in the 2nd position, "shortage of construction materials at site" in the 3rd position,
"delay of material delivery to site" in the 4th position, "cash problem during
construction" in the 5th position, "poor site management" in the 6th position, "poor
economic conditions (currency, inflation rate, etc.)" in the 7th position, "shortage of
equipment at site" in the 8th position, "equipments and tool shortage on site" the 9th
position and "owner delay in freeing the contractor financial payments" in the 9th
position.
The top ten factors that cause time overruns as perceived by consultants are: "strikes,
Israeli attacks and border closures" in the 1st position, "cash problem during
construction" in the 2nd position, "major disputes and negotiations" the 3rd position,
"delay of material delivery to site" in the 4th position, "poor site management "in the
4th position, "insufficient number of staffs (contractor)" in the 6th position "no
adherence with materials standards that is storage in the site" in the 7th position,
"inadequate contractor experience" in the 8th position, "failure in testing" in the 8th
position and " suspension of work by owner or contractor" in the 10th position.
The top ten factors that cause time overruns as perceived by owners are: "strikes,
Israeli attacks and border closures" in the 1st position, "lack of materials in markets"
in the 2nd position, "shortage of construction materials at site" in the 3rd position, "cash
problem during construction" in the 4th position, "delay of material delivery to site" in
the 5th position, "poor site management" in the 6th position "insufficient number of
staffs (contractor)" in the 7th position, "shortage of equipment at site" in the 8th
position, "no adherence with materials standards that is storage in the site" in the 8th
position and "suspension of work by owner or contractor" in the 10th position.
159
The top ten factors that cause time overruns as perceived by the three parties are:
"strikes, Israeli attacks and border closures" in the 1st position, "lack of materials in
markets" in the 2nd position, "delay of material delivery to site" in the 3rd position,
"cash problem during construction" in the 4th position, "shortage of construction
materials at site" in the 5th position, "poor site management" in the 6th position, "no
adherence with materials standards that is storage in the site" in the 7th position, "poor
economic conditions (currency, inflation rate, etc.)" also in the 7th position, "major
disputes and negotiations" the 9th position and "suspension of work by owner or
contractor" also in the 9th position.
6.2.3 Groups influencing time overruns Results show that "materials related factors" group has been ranked in the 1st position
by contractor, consultant and owner. Results also show that "external factors" group
has been ranked in the 2nd position by contractor. Respondents consultants ranked the
group of contractual relationship as the 2nd position group of time overruns.
"contractors responsibility" group has been ranked in the 2nd position by owners.
6.2.4 Factors influencing cost overruns The top ten factors that cause cost overruns as perceived by contractors are:
"increment of materials prices due to continues border closures" in the 1st position,
"delay in construction, supply of raw materials and equipment by contractors" in the
2nd position, "fluctuations in the cost of building materials" in the 3rd position, "project
materials monopoly by some suppliers" in the 4th position, "unsettlement of the local
currency in relation to dollar value" in the 5th position, "low commitment of donor to
compensate any bad result that may come from the bad economic and political
situation" in the 5th position, "donor policy in biding tender to the lowest price one"
in the 7th position, "design changes" in the 8th position, "additional work at owner’s
request" in the 9th position and "resources constraint: funds and associated auxiliaries
not ready" in the 9th position.
The top ten factors that cause cost overruns as perceived by consultants are: "delay in
construction, supply of raw materials and equipment by contractors" in the 1st
position, "increment of materials prices due to continuous border closures" in the 2nd
position, "resources constraint: funds and associated auxiliaries not ready" in the 3rd
160
position, "unsettlement of the local currency in relation to dollar value" in the 4th
position, "some tendering maneuvers by contractors, such as front- loading of rates"
in the 4th position, "fluctuations in the cost of building materials" in the 6th position,
"lack of cost planning/monitoring during pre-and post contract stages" in the 7th
position, "improvements to standard drawings during construction stage" in the 8th
position, "omissions and errors in the bills of quantities" in the 9th position and
"inaccurate quantity take-off" in the 10th position.
The top ten factors that cause cost overruns as perceived by owners are: "increment of
materials prices due to continuous border closures" in the 1st poison, "delay in
construction, supply of raw materials and equipment by contractors " in the 2nd
position, "project materials monopoly by some suppliers" in the 3rd position,
"fluctuations in the cost of building materials" in the 4th position, '' unsettlement of the
local currency in relation to dollar value" in the 5th position, "design changes" in the
6th position, "contractual claims, such as, extension of time with cost claims" in the
7th position, "inaccurate quantity take-off" in the 7th position, "lack of cost
planning/monitoring during pre-and post contract stages" in the 9th position and
"inadequate review for drawings and contract documents" in the 10th position.
The top ten factors that cause time overruns as perceived by the three parties are:
"increment of materials prices due to continues border closures" in the 1st position,
"delay in construction, supply of raw materials and equipment by contractors" in the
2nd position, "fluctuations in the cost of building materials" in the 3rd position,
"unsettlement of the local currency in relation to dollar value" in the 4th position,
"project materials monopoly by some suppliers" in the 5th position, "resources
constraint: funds and associated auxiliaries not ready" in the 6th position, "lack of cost
planning/monitoring during pre-and post contract stages" in the 7th position,
"improvements to standard drawings during construction stage" in the 8th position,
"design changes" in the 9th position and "inaccurate quantity take-off" in the 10th
position.
161
6.2.5 Comparison between the results of questionnaire and the results of case studies From the results obtained from questionnaire at this thesis, and compare it with the
results and analysis of previous cases studies, it's found that there are a real similarity
of the important factors that influencing time and cost overruns. Case studies and the
respondents of questionnaire concentrate on some factors of time and cost overruns,
these factors are:
• Strikes, Israeli attacks and borders closures, these closures affect the shortage
and lack of materials and equipments in markets.
• Mismanagement of project from the three parties (contractor, consultant and
owner) which lead to time and cost overruns of project.
• Poor planning of project and poor documentation at the site.
• Disputes between the parties of project and the absence of trust.
• Delay in revision payments by consultant and delay in freeing it by owner.
• Delay in materials and drawings approval by consultant.
• Unsettlement of the local currency in relation to the dollar value.
• Fluctuation in the cost of construction materials.
• Bad weather condition.
The above agreement between the respondents of questionnaire and the results of
cases studies prove the importance of these factors in delay and cost overruns
process.
6.3 Recommendations The following points can be recommended to all parties in order to minimize and
control time and cost overruns in construction projects.
6.3.1 Contractors should give special attention to the following factors
Contractors are recommended to be aware about construction materials, so they are
advised to purchase the construction materials at the beginning of work. It is also
better for them to have time schedule for material delivery process to the site in order
to avoid shortage or lack of materials.
162
Contractors are recommended to monitor the quality of activities continuously and to
set the required quality system in the different activities of the project so as to avoid
any mistakes that may lead to rework of activities, and finally time and cost overruns.
Contractors are advised to set up stores for required construction materials, and
especially those are scarce or that are in limited quantity in the markets to avoid time
and cost overruns.
Contractors are recommended to have qualified and quantified technical staff with
appropriate experience of the project in order to be able to follow the different
technical and managerial aspects of the project. The staff will be more effective if it is
consisted of enough numbers of engineers, technicians, and foremen, so the
responsibilities would be shared between all of them.
Contractors are recommended to set up a computerized system to perform
documentation process for all the activities in the site, so they would be able to detect
performance in the work and to follow the time schedule continuously. Contractors
are recommended to have a time schedule that clarifies their needs for equipments in
the site, so it would be ready where needed without delay.
Contractors are recommended to have the ability for controlling most project
activities, used approved materials, and mechanisms of work to avoid the failure of
tests. Contractors are recommended to avoid front loading of items upon each other
during tender pricing. In the case of delete any loaded items of contract; this will lead
to contractor loss.
Contractors are advised to prepare a method of statement and the schedule for the
project that take into consideration both reality and project type. Also it would be
advised to follow such a plan and update. It from time to other and to compare it with
available resources. Contractors are recommended to have enough cash before
beginning in any project to avoid the financial problems. Also it is advised to monitor
financial spending of the project and payments because any problem in financial
aspect will lead to time and cost overruns.
Planning and scheduling: they are continuing processes during construction and match
with the resources and time to develop the work to avoid cost overrun and disputes.
Site management and supervision: administrative and technical staff should be
163
assigned as soon as project is awarded to make arrangements to achieve completion
within specified time with the required quality, and estimated cost.
6.3.2 Owners should consider the following factors Owners are recommended to revise the bid documents such as technical
specifications, drawings, bill of quantities and the design of the project in a good way.
This is because any discrepancy in bid documents will lead to disputes between
projects parts and so delay may occur. Pay progress payment to the contractor on time
because it impairs the contractors ability to finance the work.
Owners are recommended to detect the available materials that present with
contractor and to assess his financial ability to implement the project. Also owner is
advised not to depend on the lowest price contractor to execute the project. Owners
are advised to directly interview in case of any disputes between contractor and
consultant to prevent the effect of such problems on the project accomplishment and
the quality used in the project.
Owner should determine the required duration of project and impose realistic duration
to avoid time and cost overruns. Owners are recommended to have technical staff who
is able to manage the different stages of any project and to follow the performance
percentages, and also able to compare the actual performance with the planned one.
Owners are recommended to facilitate the emergence of licenses needed to begin
project work. And also to minimize change orders as possible as he can in order to
avoid any time and cost overruns. Improvements the communication and coordination
between the local construction agencies and the international funding agencies to
solve the materials of financial issues.
6.3.3 Consultants should look to the following points Reviewing and approving design documents, shop drawings, and the payments of
contractor to avoid any delay or cost overruns at the project. Consultants are advised
to hire a qualified technical staff to manage the project in a good way, so he would be
able to overcome any technical or management problems that happen. It is also
advised for consultant to have high qualification to give suitable instruction in a
164
suitable time and to be able to answer any question stated by contractor to avoid time
and cost overruns.
Consultants are recommended to avoid centralization of decisions especially those
related to consultant work because this may lead to project delay. This may lead to
marginalization of site engineer and then to the occurrence of many problems inside
the site. Inflexibility: Consultants should be flexible in evaluating contractor works.
Compromising between the cost and high quality should be considered.
6.3.4 Government and the high policies agencies of Gaza Strip Government is recommended to construct new store houses in settlements of Gaza
Strip to store the required construction materials such as; the cement, base course,
aggregates, steel and bitumen. This proposal is a partially solution of borders closures
matters. Palestinian government is advised to find anew way to handle entrances
problem, so it is preferred for Rafah border to be a freely opened entrance to permit
materials flow to Gaza Strip. At this case we can avoid the Israeli manipulation in
construction materials and their entry, and finally this will lead to reduce time and
cost overruns.
Government is advised to state an official law through Palestinian legislative council
to prevent materials monopoly and prices manipulation, so to avoid time and cost
overruns of projects. Government is advised to introduce a pure Palestinian currency
and tie it with dollar value or at least to stabilize shekel value against dollar value as
some countries do in order reduce time and cost overruns.
Government is advised to put a condition on the donor in the memorandum of
understanding that obligate donor to compensate the contractor for any loss that result
from hard political situation. This is very effective for continuity of construction
industry in Gaza Strip, and to avoid time and cost overruns.
165
References
Abudul-Rahman H., Berawi A., Mohamed O., Othman M. and Yahya I., 2006. Delay
mitigation in the Malaysian construction industry. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 132, No. 2, pp.125 -133.
Ahmed, S. M. Azhar, S., Kappagantula, P., and Gollapudi, D., 2003. Delays in: A
brief study of the Florida construction industry. Proceeding of the 39th Annual
Conference of the Associated Schools of Construction. Clemson, South
Carolina: Clemson University. Final report, Miami, F1 33174,USA.
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, No. 8, pp. 593-599.
Alaghbari, M.W, Razali A. Khadir, Salim Azizah and Ernawati., 2007. The
significant factors causing delay of building construction projects in Malaysia.
Journal of Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol.14,
No.2, No. 8, PP. 192-206.
Al- Gahtani K. and Mohan S., 2007, Total float management for delay analysis.
Journal of Cost Engineering, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 32-37.
Al- Khalil M. and Al-Ghafly M., 1999, Important causes of delay in public utility
projects in Saudi Arabia, Journal of Construction Management and Economics,
Vol.17, No.5, pp. 647-655.
Al- Khalil M. and AL-Ghafly M., 1999, Delay in public utility projects in Saudi
Arabia. International Journal of Project Management, Vol.17, No.2, pp.101-106.
Alwi, S. and Hampson, k., 2002, Identifying the importance causes of delays in
building construction projects, In Proceedings The 9th East Asia – Pracific
Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction, Bali, Indonesia.
Accessed from: https:/ eprints. Qut.edu.au/secure/00004156/01/Bali-
Conference-2003.doc.
166
Arditi D., Akan G., and Gurdamar S., 1985, Reasons for delays in public projects in
Turkey, Journal of Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 3, No.12,
pp. 171-181.
Assaf. S. A., AL-Khalil, M and AL-Hazmi, M., 1995, Cause of delay in large
building construction projects, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol.11,
No. 2, pp. 45-50.
Assaf S. and AL-Hejji S., 2006, Causes of delay in large construction projects,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 349-357.
Chan Albert P.C., 2001, Time cost relationship of public sector projects in Malaysia.
International Journal of project Management, Vol. 19, No.4, pp. 223-229.
Chan Daniel and Kumaraswamy Mohan M., 1996, An evaluation of construction
time performance in the building industry. Journal of Building and
Environmental, Vol.31, No. 6, pp. 569-578.
Chan D. and Kumarswamy M., 2002, Compressing construction duration: lessons
Learned from Hong Kong Building Projects. International Journal of Project
Management, Vol.20, No. 1, pp. 23-35.
Chimwaso, K.D., 2001, An Evaluation of cost performance of public projects; case of
Botswana. Department of Architecture and Building Services, Private Bag 0025,
Gaborone, Botswana.
Choudhury I., and Phatak O., 2004, Correlates of time overrun in commercial
construction, ASC proceeding of 4th Annual Conference, Brigham Young
University- provo-Utah, April 8-10.
Creative research systems, 2001, www.cdb.riken.jp
Dayton Kevin and Erickson Dave., 2006, Information about Rising construction costs
in Washington State. Report prepared in Washington State, Department of
transportation, No. 360-705-7821.
167
Eden Colin, Williams Terry and Ackermann Fran., 2005, Analyzing project cost
overruns: Comparing the measured mile analysis and system dynamics
modeling. International Journal of Project Management, Vol.23, No. 2, pp. 135-
139.
Etchegaray, J.M. and Fisher, W., 2006, Survey research: be careful where you step,
Reliability and validity of measures, BMJ Journals, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 154.
Enshassi A., Lisk R., Sawalhi I. and Radwan I., 2003, Contributors to construction
delays in Palestine, The Journal of American institute of constructors, Vol. 27,
No. 2, pp. 45-53.
Fellows, R., Liu, A.,1997, Research methods for construction. Blackwell Science Ltd.
Flyrbjerg, Bent., 2005, Policy and planning of large infrastructure project problems,
causes, cures. World Bank policy research working paper 3781, December
2005.
Fong N., Wong L.Y., and Wong LT., 2006, Fire services installation related
contributors of construction delay. Journal of Building and Environment, Vol.
41, pp. 211-222.
Frimpongs Yaw, Oluwoye Jacob, and Crawford Lynn., 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.
Jackson. J., 1999, Facility construction cost overruns : Analysis for Navy construction
contracts. A Report for CE675-civil Engineering Department, North Carolina
state university, Raleigh, N.C.
Kaming Peter, Olomolaiye Paul, Holt gary, and Harris Frank C., 1997, Factors
influencing construction time and cost overruns on high-rise projects in
Indonesia, Journal of Construction Management and Economic. Vol. 15, No.1,
pp. 83-94.
168
Kessing Sebastian., 2003, Delay in joint projects. Report prepared in Freie University
Berlin and European university institute. Sp || 2003-15. www.wz-berlin.de.
Kumaraswamy M. and Chan D., 1998, Contributors to construction delays, Journal of
Construction Management and Economics, Vol.16, No.1, pp.17-29.
Koushki, P.A, AL-Rashid, Khalid and Kartam, Nabil., 2005, Delays and cost
increases in the construction of private residential projects in Kuwait, Journal of
Construction Management and Economics. Vol. 23, No.3, pp. 285-294. Lo Biondo-Wood, G., Haber, J., 1998, Nursing Research: Critical Appraisal and
Utilisation, 4th edition. Mosby, Missouri.
Lo T., Fung I., and Tung K., 2006, Construction delay in Hong Kong civil
engineering projects, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 132, No.6, pp. 636-649.
Mezher, T.C. 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.
Morris S., 1990, Cost and time overruns in public sector projects. Economic and
Political weekly, Nov.24,1990, Vol. xxv, No.47, PP. M 154 to M 168.
Moungrous W. and Charoenngam., 2003, Operational delay factors at multi – stages
in Thai building construction. The International Journal of Construction, Vol.3,
No.1, pp. 15-30.
Naoum, S. G., 1998, Dissertation writing for construction students Oxford
Butterworth.
Odeh Abdalla and Battaineh Hussien T., 2002, Causes of construction delay:
traditional contracts. International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20,
No.1, pp. 67-73.
169
Ogunlana Stephen and promkuntong K., and Jearkjirm, V., 1996, Construction delays
in a fast-growing economy: comparing Thailand with other economics,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol.14, No.1, pp.37-45
Ogunsmi D. and Jagboro G.,2006, Time cost model for building projects in Nigeria,
Journal of Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 24, No.3, pp. 253-
258.
Okuwoga A., 1998, Cost – Time performance of public sector housing projects in
Nigeria, HABITAT INTL, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 389-395.
Oladapo M., 2001, A framework for cost management of low cost housing.
International Conference on Spatial Information for Sustainable Development,
Nairobi, Kenya. 2-5 October 2001.
Palestine Contractors Union (PCU), Reports 2004.
Poilt, D., and Hungler, B., 1985. Essentials of nursing research; Methods and
applications, J. B. Lippincott company.
Raufaste, N., Callahan, J., 2002, Map Overview, A Draft Strategic to Improve the
Competitiveness of the West Bank and Gaza Strip Construction Sector,
Palestine.
Sambasivan M. and Soon Y., 2007, Causes and effects of delays in Malaysian
construction industry, International Journal of Project Management, Vol.25,
No.5, pp. 517-526.
Takim, R. , Akintoye A. and Kelly J., 2004, Analysis of measures of construction
project success in Malaysia, Association of Researches in Construction
Management, Vol.2, No.9, pp. 1123-113.
Vidalis, M.S and Najafi, T.F., 2002, Cost and time overruns in highway construction
4th transportation specially conference of the Canadian Society for civil
Engineering, Montreal, Quebec, Canada June 5-8 (2002).
170
Wang J., Fisher N. and Sun Wu., 2003, An analysis of the distribution of time
variance for building projects, The International Journal of Construction
Management. Vol.3, No.1, pp.73-82.
Wilkinson S. and Ying F., 2005, Improving the performance for asset owing owners
Report prepared by Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019,
AUCKLAND, New Zealand.
Zhu. K. and Lin.L., 2004, A stage – by – stage factor control frame work for cost
estimation of construction projects, Owners Driving Innovation International
Conference. http:/ flybjerg. Plan.aau.dk / JAPAASPUBLISH ED.pelf.
Reference for Frequencies and descriptive statistics:
The Practice of Business Statistics., 2003, Moore, D., McCabe, G., Duckworth, W.,
Sclove, S.
.، دار اليازوري العلمية للنشر والتوزيع2001، الطرق اإلحصائية، الطبعة الثانية 2001 محمد،. أبو صالح
171
Annex 1: The results of validity test of all categories of questionnaire
172
Table 3.4: Correlation coefficient of each factor of project related factors and the total of this category at N=124 project related factors
Spearman Correlation Coefficient
P-Value (Sig.)
Inappropriate type of contract used (e.g. traditional, design- and- build, etc.) 0.565(**) 0.000(**)
High quality of finishes needed 0.499 0.000(**) Slow information flow between project team members
0.657 0.000(**)
Poor site safety 0.697 0.000(**)
Discrepancies between contract documents 0.618 0.000(**)
Suspension of work by owner or contractor 0.387 0.000(**)
Inconsistency between the project and its environmental due to donor agenda
0.665 0.000(**)
Donor own policy in implementation methods and characteristics of the project
0.664 0.000(**)
Inflexibility of donor in giving appropriate periods for project implementation
0.560 0.000(**)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
Table 3.4 clarifies the correlation coefficient for each factor of the Project-related
factors category and the total of the group. The p- value (sig) are less than 0.01, so
the coefficients of this category are significant at α = 0.01, so it can be said that the
paragraphs of this category are consistent and valid to be measured what it was set
for.
Table 3.5 : Correlation coefficient of each factor of contractor responsibilities and the total of this category at N=124 Contractor responsibilities factors
Spearman Correlation Coefficient
P-Value (Sig.)
Insufficient number of staffs (contractor) 0.314
0.000(**)
Spend some time to find sub-contractors company who is appropriate for each task
0.569
0.000(**)
Often changing sub-contractors company 0.451 0.000(**)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
173
Table 3.5 : Correlation coefficient of each factor of contractor responsibilities and the total of this category at N=124 (cont.) Contractor responsibilities factors
Spearman Correlation Coefficient
P-Value (Sig.)
low productivity of labour 0.512
0.000(**)
Lack of subcontractor's skills 0.599
0.000(**)
Poor site management
0.568 0.000(**)
Equipments and tool shortage on site 0.444
0.000(**)
Poor distribution of labour 0.558
0.000(**)
Mistakes during construction 0.627
0.000(**)
Inadequate contractor experience 0.685
0.000(**)
Lack of experience on the part of the consultant's site- staff; (managerial and supervisory personnel)
0.473
0.000(**)
Uncompromising attitude between parties 0.372
0.000(**)
Equipment allocation problems 0.685
0.000(**)
Insufficient contractor competition 0.345
0.000(**)
Lack of protection of complete work 0.429
0.000(**)
Failure in testing 0.471
0.000(**)
Poor communications and misunderstanding 0.414
0.000(**)
Cash problem during construction 0.521
0.000(**)
Low harmony between technician team of contractor and consultant which may lead to controversy between both of them
0.537
0.000(**)
Unethical behaviors used by contractors to achieve the highest possible level of profit
0.585
0.000(**)
Contractor uncommitment to consultant instructions. 0.631
0.000(**)
Dependence on a newly –graduated engineer to bear the whole responsibilities in the site
0.269
0.001(**)
Low harmony between technician team of contractor and consultant which may lead to controversy between both of them
0.384
0.000(**)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
174
Table 3.5 clarifies the correlation coefficient for each factor of the contractor
responsibility and the total of the group. The p- value (sig) are less than 0.01, so the
coefficients of this category are significant at α = 0.01, so it can be said that the
paragraphs of this category are consistent and valid to be measured what it was set
for.
Table 3.6 : Correlation coefficient of each factor of consultant responsibilities category and the total of this category at N=124
Consultant responsibilities factors
Spearman Correlation Coefficient
P-Value (Sig.)
Absence of consultant's site staff 0.643 0.000(**)
Lack of technical and managerial skills of staff 0.776
0.000(**)
Slowness in giving instruction 0.663
0.000(**)
Bad contract management by Consultant 0.795
0.000(**)
Lack of quality assurance / control 0.649
0.000(**)
Waiting time for approval of tests and Poor inspection
0.735
0.000(**)
Delay of materials approval by consultant 0.727
0.000(**)
Little periodical sessions to address work problems 0.500
0.000(**)
Previous dispute between contractor and consultant 0.794
0.000(**)
Centralization of decision making process from consultant party
0.459
0.000(**)
Bad past history and reputation of the consultant (corruption)
0.714
0.000(**)
Lack of job security for the consultancy team 0.443
0.000(**)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level Table 3.6 clarifies the correlation coefficient for each factor of the consultant
responsibility and the total of the group The p- value (sig) are less than 0.01, so the
coefficients of this category are significant at α = 0.01, so it can be said that the
paragraphs of this category are consistent and valid to be measured what it was set
for.
175
Table 3.7: Correlation coefficient of each factor of factor of owner's responsibilities category and the total of this category at N=124 Owner responsibilities factors
Spearman Correlation Coefficient
P-Value (Sig.)
Contract modifications (replacement and addition of – new work to the project and change in specifications)
0.423
0.000(**)
Owner – initiated variation 0.650
0.000(**)
Unrealistic contract durations imposed by owner 0.763
0.000(**)
Owner interference
0.870
0.000(**)
Owner has no priority/ urgency to complete the project
0.775
0.000(**)
Unrealistic owners initial requirements 0.819
0.000(**)
High quality of work required 0.602
0.000(**)
Lack of unified system for contracts, general conditions, and specifications of projects
0.565
0.000(**)
Owner delay in freeing the contractor financial payments
0.819
0.000(**)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level Table 3.7 clarifies the correlation coefficient for each factor of the Owner
responsibility and the total of the group. The p- value (sig) are less than 0.01, so the
coefficients of this category are significant at α = 0.01, so it can be said that the
paragraphs of this category are consistent and valid to be measured what it was set
for.
Table 3.8 : Correlation coefficient of each factor of professional management and the total of this category at N=124 Professional management factors
Spearman Correlation Coefficient
P-Value (Sig.)
Poor provision of information to project participants
0.555
0.000(**)
Inadequate managerial skills for all parties
0.723
0.000(**)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
176
Table 3.8: Correlation coefficient of each factor of professional management and the total of this category at N=124 (cont)
Professional management factors
Spearman Correlation Coefficient
P-Value (Sig.)
Low speed of decision making within each project team
0.662 0.000(**)
Inadequate construction planning 0.610
0.000(**)
Bad of Preparation and approval of shop drawings
0.678
0.000(**)
Back of follow up for the project schedule and absence of continuous tracking
0.509
0.000(**)
Lack of personnel training and management support
0.749
0.000(**)
Poor judgment in estimating time and resources
0.678
0.000(**)
Lack of contractor's home office follows up 0.683
0.000(**)
Slow of inspection and testing procedure used in project
0.649
0.000(**)
Rework of bad quality performance 0.361 0.000(**)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
Table 3.8 clarifies the correlation coefficient for each factor of the Professional
management and the total of the group. The p- value (sig) are less than 0.01, so the
coefficients of this category are significant at α = 0.01, so it can be said that the
paragraphs of this category are consistent and valid to be measured what it was set
for. Table 3.9 : Correlation coefficient of each factor of design and documentation and the total of this category at N=124 Design and documentation factors
Spearman Correlation Coefficient
P-Value (Sig.)
Unclear specifications 0.591
0.000(**)
Slow drawing revision and distribution 0.745
0.000(**)
Poor design 0.852 0.000(**)
Incomplete drawings 0.864
0.000(**)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
177
Table 3.9 : Correlation coefficient of each factor of design and documentation and the total of this category at N=124 (cont)
Design and documentation factors
Spearman Correlation Coefficient
P-Value (Sig.)
Poor documentation and no detailed written procedures
0.719
0.000(**)
Not using systematic procedures
0.705
0.000(**)
Delays in design work / lack of design information 0.764
0.000(**)
Lack of designer's experience 0.755
0.000(**)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
Table 3.9 clarifies the correlation coefficient for each factor of the Design and
documentation and the total of the group. The p- value (sig) are less than 0.01, so the
coefficients of this category are significant at α = 0.01, so it can be said that the
paragraphs of this category are consistent and valid to be measured what it was set
for.
Table 3.10: Correlation coefficient of each factor of materials category and the total of this category at N=124 Materials related factors
Spearman Correlation Coefficient
P-Value (Sig.)
Delay of material delivery to site 0.654
0.000(**)
Poor material handling on site 0.616 0.000(**)
Inappropriate / misuse material 0.665
0.000(**)
Poor procurement programming of materials
0.631 0.000(**)
Lack of materials in markets 0.466 0.000(**)
Shortage of construction materials at site 0.529
0.000(**)
Low quality of materials 0.575
0.000(**)
No adherence with materials standards that is storage in the site
0.401
0.000(**)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
178
Table 3.10 clarifies the correlation coefficient for each factor of the Material and the
total of the group. The p- value (sig) are less than 0.01, so the coefficients of this
category are significant at α = 0.01, so it can be said that the paragraphs of this
category are consistent and valid to be measured what it was set for.
Table 3.11 : Correlation coefficient of each factor of execution category and the total of this category at N=124 Execution related factors
Spearman Correlation Coefficient
P-Value (Sig.)
Too much overtime for labour
0.632
0.000(**)
Inappropriate construction methods
0.515
0.000(**)
Poor equipment choice/ infective equipment
0.684
0.000(**)
Highly bureaucratic organization
0.510
0.000(**)
Project construction complexity
0.692
0.000(**)
Price escalation of materials and for manpower
0.708
0.000(**)
Lack of a strong organizational culture
0.662
0.000(**)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
Table 3.11 clarifies the correlation coefficient for each factor of the Execution and the
total of the group. The p- value (sig) are less than 0.01, so the coefficients of this
category are significant at α = 0.01, so it can be said that the paragraphs of this
category are consistent and valid to be measured what it was set for.
179
Table 3.12 : Correlation coefficient of each factor of labour and equipment category and the total of this category at N=124 Labour and equipment factors
Spearman Correlation Coefficient
P-Value (Sig.)
Equipment availability and failure
0.701
0.000(**)
Shortage of site workers
0.722
0.000(**)
Inaccurate prediction of equipment production rate
0.642
0.000(**)
Skilled labor shortage
0.683
0.000(**)
Lack of equipment
0.651
0.000(**)
lack of maintenance for the equipment
0.485
0.000(**)
Unskilled operators
0.510
0.000(**)
Ages of labors at site
0.505
0.000(**)
Differences of factionalism and polices aspects of workers
0.306
0.000(**)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
Table 3.12 clarifies the correlation coefficient for each factor of the Labor and
equipment and the total of the group. The p- value (sig) are less than 0.01, so the
coefficients of this category are significant at α = 0.01, so it can be said that the
paragraphs of this category are consistent and valid to be measured what it was set
for.
180
Table 3.13: Correlation coefficient of each factor of contractual relationship category and the total of this category at N=124 Contractual relationship factors
Spearman Correlation Coefficient
P-Value (Sig.)
Major disputes and negotiations
0.711
0.000(**)
Inappropriate overall organizational structure linking- all parties to the project
0.781
0.000(**)
Mistakes and discrepancies in contract documents 0.745
0.000(**)
Inappropriate type of contract used
0.756
0.000(**)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
Table 3.13 clarifies the correlation coefficient for each factor of the contractual
relationships and the total of the group. The p- value (sig) are less than 0.01, so the
coefficients of this category are significant at α = 0.01, so it can be said that the
paragraphs of this category are consistent and valid to be measured what it was set
for.
Table 3.14: Correlation coefficient of each factor of governmental relation category and the total
of this category at N=124
Governmental relation factors
Spearman Correlation Coefficient
P-Value (Sig.)
Building regulations 0.755 0.000(**)
Bureaucracy in Government agencies 0.818 0.000(**)
Slow permits by Govt. agencies 0.856 0.000(**)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
Table 3.14 clarifies the correlation coefficient for each factor of the Government
relations and the total of the group. The p- value (sig) are less than 0.01, so the
coefficients of this category are significant at α = 0.01, so it can be said that the
paragraphs of this category are consistent and valid to be measured what it was set
for.
181
Table 3.15: Correlation coefficient of each factor of external factors category and the total of this category at N=124 External factors
Spearman Correlation Coefficient
P-Value (Sig.)
Poor site conditions (location, ground, etc.)
0.638
0.000(**)
Poor economic conditions (currency, inflation rate, etc.) 0.425
0.000(**)
Changes in laws and regulations
0.698
0.00(**)
Problems with neighbors
0.468
0.000(**)
Hot and cold weather (weather conditions)
0.502
0.000(**)
Strikes, Israeli attacks and Border closures
0.346
0.000(**)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
Table 3.15 clarifies the correlation coefficient for each factor of the External factors and the
total of the group. The p- value (sig) are less than 0.01, so the coefficients of this
category are significant at α = 0.01, so it can be said that the paragraphs of this
category are consistent and valid to be measured what it was set for.
Table 3.16 :Correlation coefficient of each factor of cost overruns category and the total of this category at N=124 Cost overruns
Spearman Correlation Coefficient
P-Value (Sig.)
Design changes 0.255
0.002(**)
Unpredictable weather conditions
0.315
0.000(**)
Fluctuations in the cost of building materials 0.413
0.000(**)
Lack of coordination at design phase 0.524
0.000(**)
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.
182
Table 3.16 :Correlation coefficient of each factor of cost overruns category and the total of this category at N=124 (cont.) Cost overruns
Spearman Correlation Coefficient
P-Value (Sig.)
Inadequate review for drawings and contract documents. 0.498
0.000(**)
Incomplete design at the time of tender 0.675
0.000(**)
Additional work at owner’s request 0.485
0.000(**)
Changes in owner’s brief 0.761
0.000(**)
Lack of cost planning/monitoring during pre-and post contract stages
0.579
0.000(**)
Remeasurement of provisional works 0.420
0.000(**)
Lack of cost reports during construction stage 0.480
0.000(**)
Delays in issuing information to the contractor during construction stage
0.624
0.000(**)
Contractual claims, such as, extension of time with cost claims
0.392
0.000(**)
Improvements to standard drawings during construction stage
0.459
0.000(**)
Indecision by the supervising team in dealing with the contractor’s queries resulting in delays
0.581
0.000(**)
Omissions and errors in the bills of quantities 0.432
0.000(**)
Delays in costing variations and additional works 0.437
0.000(**)
Some tendering maneuvers by contractors, such as front- loading of rates
0.207
0.011(*)
Inaccurate quantity take-off 0.421
0.000(**)
Lack of experience of project type 0.431
0.000(**)
Lack of experience of local regulation 0.592 0.000(**)
Inadequate project preparation, planning and implementation
0.550
0.000(**)
Delay in construction, supply of raw Materials & equipment by contractors
0.262
0.002(**)
Change in the scope of the project, in Government policies
0.338
0.000(**)
Resources constraint: funds and associated auxiliaries not ready
0.373
0.000(**)
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.
183
Table 3.16 :Correlation coefficient of each factor of cost overruns category and the total of this category at N=124 (cont.) Cost overruns
Spearman Correlation Coefficient
P-Value (Sig.)
Delays in decisions making by Government, failure of specific coordinating
0.493
0.000(**)
Wrong / inappropriate choice of site 0.527
0.000(**)
Technical incompetence, poor organizational structure, and failures of the enterprise
0.466
0.000(**)
Labour unrest 0.412
0.000(**)
Lack of experience of technical consultants, inadequacy of foreign collaboration agreements, monopoly of technology
0.426
0.000(**)
Absence of managerial programs that help in saving materials inside the site
0.485
0.000(**)
Delay in project's handing over 0.444
0.000(**)
Long period of the project maintenance period "one year" 0.447
0.000(**)
Increment of material prices due to continuous border closures
0.157 0.041(*)
Bad allocation of workers inside the site 0.346
0.000(**)
Over time work hours of supervising Engineer are paid by the contractor
0.403
0.000(**)
Unsettlement of the local currency in relation to dollar value
0.388
0.000(**)
Project materials monopoly by some suppliers 0.441
0.000(**)
Attracting skillful technicians for work 0.393
0.000(**)
Inability of the contractor to be adopted properly with the projects environmental
0.483
0.000(**)
Low communication of donors to compensate any bad result that may come from the economic political situation
0.546
0.000(**)
Donor policy in bidding tender to the lowest price one 0.360 0.000(**)
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.
Table 3.16 clarifies the correlation coefficient for each factor of the cost overruns
factors and the total of the group. The p – value (sig) are less than 0.01 and 0.05, so
the coefficients of this category are significant at α = 0.01 and α = 0.05, so it can be
said that the paragraphs of this category are consistent and valid to be measure what it
was set for.
184
Annex 2: Questionnaire in English
185
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR RESEARCH THESIS
SECTION A: GENERAL ORGANIZATION INFORMATION 1. Name of organization : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Major type of work involved: Buildings Roads Water and Sewage Electro mechanics 3. respondents designation: Owner of organization . Project manager Site Engineer Office Engineer 4. Relevant working experience (Years): 1-3 Yrs 3-5 Yrs 5-10 Yrs >10Yrs 5. Location of orgnization: North of Gaza Gaza Middle area South of Gaza 6. Average of projects executed per year ($): Less than 1 million 1-2 million 2-3 million More than 3 million 7. No. of constant employees: Less than 10 10-15 15-20 More than 20 SECTION B: FACTORS INFLUENCING TIME OVERRUNS OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN GAZA STRIP. Please indicate the significance of each factor by ticking the appropriate boxes. Add any remarks relating to each factor on the last column e.g. as to the reasons, the critical factors or the solutions. E.S. = extremely significant (%100); V.S. = very significant (%75); M.S.= moderately significant (%50); S.S. = slightly significant (%25); N.S. = not significant (0)
186
Hypothesized factors E.S. 100%
V.S. 75%
M.S. 50%
S.S. 25%
N.S. 0% Remarks
1. Project – related factors
Inappropriate type of contract used (e.g. traditional, design- and- build, etc.)
High quality of finishes needed
Slow information flow between project team members
Poor site safety
Discrepancies between contract documents
Suspension of work by owner or contractor
Inconsistency between the project and its environmental due to donor agenda
Donor own policy in implementation methods and characteristics of the project
Inflexibility of donor in giving appropriate periods for project implementation
2.Contractor's responsibilities
Insufficient number of staffs (contractor)
Spend some time to find sub-contractors company who is appropriate for each task
Often changing sub-contractors company
Low productivity of labour
Lack of subcontractor's skills
Poor site management
Equipments and tool shortage on site
Poor distribution of labour
Mistakes during construction
Inadequate contractor experience
Lack of experience on the part of the consultant's site- staff; (managerial and supervisory personnel)
187
Hypothesized factors E.S. 100%
V.S. 75%
M.S. 50%
S.S. 25%
N.S. 0% Remarks
Uncompromising attitude between parties
Equipment allocation problems
Insufficient contractor competition
Lack of protection of complete work Failure in testing Poor communications and misunderstanding
Cash problem during construction
Low harmony between technician team of contractor and consultant which may lead to controversy between both of them
Unethical behaviors used by contractors to achieve the highest possible level of profit
Contractor uncommitment to consultant instructions.
Dependence on a newly –graduated engineer to bear the whole responsibilities in the site
Use of unemployment programs in projects
3.Consultant's responsibilities
Absence of consultant's site staff
Lack of technical and managerial skills of staff
Slowness in giving instruction
Bad contract management by Consultant
Lack of quality assurance / control
Waiting time for approval of tests and Poor inspection
Delays in payment
Delay of materials approval by consultant
Little periodical sessions to address work problems
Previous dispute between contractor and consultant
Centralization of decision making process from consultant party
Bad past history and reputation of the consultant (corruption)
188
Hypothesized factors E.S. 100%
V.S. 75%
M.S. 50%
S.S. 25%
N.S. 0% Remarks
Lack of job security for the consultancy team
4.Owner's responsibilities
Contract modifications (replacement and addition of – new work to the project and change in specifications)
Owner – initiated variation
Unrealistic contract durations imposed by owner
Owner interference
Owner has no priority/ urgency to complete the project
Unrealistic owners initial requirements
High quality of work required
Lack of unified system for contracts, general conditions, and specifications of projects
Owner delay in freeing the contractor financial payments
5. Professional Management
Poor provision of information to project participants
Inadequate managerial skills for all parties
Low speed of decision making within each project team
Inadequate construction planning
Bad of Preparation and approval of shop drawings
189
Hypothesized factors E.S. 100%
V.S. 75%
M.S.50%
S.S. 25%
N.S. 0% Remarks
Back of follow up for the project schedule and absence of continuous tracking
Lack of personnel training and management support
Poor judgment in estimating time and resources
Lack of contractor's home office follows up
Slow of inspection and testing procedure used in project
Rework of bad quality performance
6. Design and Documentation
Unclear specifications
Slow drawing revision and distribution
Poor design
Incomplete drawings
Poor documentation and no detailed written procedures
Not using systematic procedures
Delays in design work / lack of design information
Lack of designer's experience
7. Material
Delay of material delivery to site
Poor material handling on site
Inappropriate / misuse material
Poor procurement programming of materials
Lack of materials in markets
Shortage of construction materials at site
Low quality of materials
No adherence with materials standards that is storage in the site
190
Hypothesized factors E.S. 100%
V.S. 75%
M.S. 50%
S.S. 25%
N.S. 0% Remarks
8. Execution
Too much overtime for labour
Inappropriate construction methods
Poor equipment choice/ infective equipment
Highly bureaucratic organization
Project construction complexity
Price escalation of materials and for manpower
Lack of a strong organizational culture
9. Labor and equipment
Equipment availability and failure
Shortage of site workers
Inaccurate prediction of equipment production rate
Skilled labor shortage
Lack of equipment
Lack of maintenance for the equipment
Unskilled operators
Ageing of site workers
Different political and factional affiliation of workers
10. Contractual relationship
Major disputes and negotiations
Inappropriate overall organizational structure linking- all parties to the project
Mistakes and discrepancies in contract documents
Inappropriate type of contract used
191
SECTION C: FACTORS INFLUENCING COST OVERRUNS OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN GAZA STRIP.
Hypothesized factors E.S. 100%
V.S. 75%
M.S. 50%
S.S. 25%
N.S. 0% Remarks
11.Government relations
Building regulations
Bureaucracy in Government agencies
Slow permits by Govt. agencies
12. External factors
Poor site conditions (location, ground, etc.)
Poor economic conditions (currency, inflation rate, etc.)
Changes in laws and regulations
Problems with neighbors
Hot and cold weather (weather conditions)
Strikes, Israeli attacks and borders closures
Hypothesized factors E.S. 100%
V.S. 75%
M.S. 50%
S.S. 25%
N.S. 0% Remarks
Design changes
Unpredictable weather conditions
Fluctuations in the cost of building materials
Lack of coordination at design phase
Inadequate review for drawings and contract documents.
192
Hypothesized factors E.S. 100%
V.S. 75%
M.S. 50%
S.S. 25%
N.S. 0% Remarks
Incomplete design at the time of tender
Additional work at owner’s request
Changes in owner’s brief
Lack of cost planning/monitoring during pre-and post contract stages
Remeasurement of provisional works
Lack of cost reports during construction stage
Delays in issuing information to the contractor during construction stage
Contractual claims, such as, extension of time with cost claims
Improvements to standard drawings during construction stage
Indecision by the supervising team in dealing with the contractor’s queries resulting in delays
Omissions and errors in the bills of quantities
Delays in costing variations and additional works
Some tendering maneuvers by contractors, such as front- loading of rates
Inaccurate quantity take-off
Lack of experience of project type
Lack of experience of local regulation
Inadequate project preparation, planning and implementation
Delay in construction, supply of raw Materials and equipment by contractors
193
Hypothesized factors E.S. 100%
V.S. 75%
M.S. 50%
S.S. 25%
N.S. 0% Remarks
Change in the scope of the project, in government policies
Resources constraint: funds and associated auxiliaries not ready
Delays in decisions making by Government, failure of specific coordinating
Wrong / inappropriate choice of site
Technical incompetence, poor organizational structure, and failures of the enterprise
Labour unrest
Lack of experience of technical consultants, inadequacy of foreign collaboration agreements, monopoly of technology
Absence of managerial programs that help in saving materials inside the site
Delay in preliminary handing over of project
Long period of the project maintenance period
Increment of material prices due to continuous closures
Bad allocation of workers inside the site
Over time work hours of supervising Engineer are paid by contractor
Unsettlement of the local currency in relation to dollar value
Project materials monopoly by some suppliers
Attracting skillful technicians for work
194
THANK YOU !!
Hypothesized factors E.S. 100%
V.S. 75%
M.S. 50%
S.S. 25%
N.S. 0% Remarks
Inability of the contractor to be adopted properly with the project environmental
Low communication of donors to compensate any bad result that may come from the economic political situation
Donor policy in bidding tender to the lowest price one
195
Annex 3: Questionnaire in Arabic
196
غزة –الجامعة اإلسالمية
عمادة الدراسات العليا
آلية الهندسة قسم الهندسة المدنية
إدارة المشاريع الهندسية
استبيان حول دراسة
ت في قطاع غزةالعوامل التي تؤثر على زيادة المدة الزمنية و تكلفة مشاريع اإلنشاءا
وذلك استكماًال لمتطلبات الحصول على درجة الماجستير في إدارة المشاريع الهندسية
:الباحث
جمعـــة محمـــد النجــــــــار. م :اشراف
عدنان انشاصي: البروفسور 2007أغسطس
The Islamic University – Gaza Higher Education Deanship Faculty of Engineering Civil Engineering Construction Project Management
197
بسم اهللا الرحمن الرحيم
بقطاع غزة ،،، شاءاتاإلناألخوة المهندسين في قطاع صناعة
السالم عليكم ورحمة اهللا وبرآاته ،،،
...تحية طيبة وبعد
ة / الموضوع ة وتكلف دة الزمني ادة الم ى زي ؤثر عل استبانة حول دراسة العوامل التي ت .في قطاع غزة اإلنشاءاتمشاريع
رة لتطور يعتبر قطاع غزة وبالرغم من مساحته الجغرافية الصغيرة بؤرة آبيناعة اءاتص ر اإلنش ى أث اع عل ه القط ذي يعيش ر ال اش الكبي بب االنتع ك بس وذل
ة، ة التحتي المشروعات الضخمة التي تنفذ بداخله سواءًا أآانت في مجال البناء أو البنيبقطاع اإلنشاءات مما هيأ ظروفًا قوية لوجود العديد من المؤسسات العاملة في قطاع
م غزة ، ولكن هذا التطور الكبير البد وأن يصحبه العديد من المشاآل ، ولعل من أهدد ة المشاريع في قطاع غزة والتي تتع هذه المشاآل هي حدوث التأخير وزيادة تكلف
ذه العوامل ذا الموضوع لدراسة ه ار ه م اختي ذلك ت اد لحدوثها أسباب آثيرة، ول إليجها إل كلة وتقليص ذه المش ن ه د م ل الح ن أج يات م ول والتوص ب الحل ى أقصى أنس
. الدرجات ي ببًا ف وا س نكم أن تكون ب م ذلك نطل احول ذا إنج ة ه ارآتكم بتعبئ ة بمش ذه الدراس ه
ن تبيان م ذا االس ي ه رد ف ا ي ل م م أن آ ع العل ة م ل موضوعية وحيادي تبيان بك االسرية ولغرض البحث العلمي ة الس ي غاي تكون ف ا وس يتم المحافظة عليه ات س معلوم
.فقط
عاونكم ،،،شاآرًا لكم حسن ت
جمعـــة محمـــد النجــار. م
198
:معلومات عامة عن المؤسسة ) : أ(فقرة
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ):اختياري(اسم الشرآة
آهروميكانيك □ مياه ومجاري □ طرق □ مباني □ : نوع األعمال التي تقوم بها الشرآة
مكتب مهندس □ مهندس موقع□ مدير مشاريع □ صاحب الشرآة □ : وظيفة من يقوم بتعبئة االستبيان
سنوات 3-5من □ سنوات 1-3من □ : عدد سنوات الخبرة لمن يقوم بتعبئة االستبيان سنوات 10أآثر من □ سنوات 5-10من □
جنوب القطاع □ المنطقة الوسطى □ غزة □ شمال غزة □ : مكان المؤسسة
مليون 2 إلى 1 من □ مليون 1 أقل من □: )بالدوالر(ها سنويا معدل قيمة المشاريع التي يتم تنفيذ
مليون 3 أآثر من □ مليون 3 إلى 2 من □
20أآثر من □ 20 إلى 15 من □ 15إلى 10 من □10 أقل من □ :عدد العاملين الثابتين بالشرآة
:العوامل التي تؤثر على زيادة المدة الزمنية للمشاريع الهندسية في قطاع غزة ): ب(فقرة
لتعبر عن مدى أهمية آل عامل من العوامل التي تؤثر على زيادة المدة الزمنية وآذلك وضع أي " "وضع إشارة بإمكانك :مالحظات تراها مناسبة
" 0"ال أوافق أبدًا - %" 25"ال أوافق - %" 50"أوافق أحيانًا - %" 75"أوافق - %" 100"وافق بشدة أ -
العامل المؤثر
أوافق جدًا
%100
أوافق%75
أوافق أحيانا%50
ال أوافق%25
ال أوافق أبدًا%0
العوامل المتعلقة بالمشروع): 1(مجموعة
... "إلخ" تقليدي، تصميم وبناء "عدم مالئمة العقد المستخدم
الجودة العالية التي تحتاج أعمال التشطيب
بطئ تدفق المعلومات بين أفراد فريق المشروع
االفتقار إلى وسائل األمن والسالمة في الموقع
وجود تعارض بين وثائق العطاء
ولحدوث تعليق لألعمال بواسطة المالك أو المقا
انح د الم بب تحدي ة بس ة المحيط روع للبيئ ة المش دم مالئم ع لتنفيذ أنواع معينة من المشاريع
ة فرض المانح لسياسة معينة في مواصفات المشروع وفي آلي وتنفيذ واستالم األعمال
ذ ة مناسبة لتنفي رات زمني انحين في إعطاء فت ة الم عدم مرون المشاريع
199
المؤثرالعامل
أوافق جدًا
%100
أوافق%75
أوافق أحيانا%50
ال أوافق%25
ال أوافق أبدًا%0
مسئوليات المقاول): 2(مجموعة
الطاقم الفني للمقاول غير آافي وغير مؤهل النجاز المشروع
قضاء وقت طويل في إيجاد مقاولي الباطن بأقل سعر للقيام بنشاطات المشروع
عامل المقاول مع مقاول من الباطن ثابتعدم ت
انخفاض انتاجية العمال بسبب عدم دفع أجور مناسبة
ضعف مهارات مقاولي الباطن
افتقار اإلدارة السليمة للموقع
نقص المعدات واآلليات لتنفيذ المشروع
سوء توزيع العمال في موقع العمل
تنفيذ األعمال بسبب عدم تشييك األعمال من األخطاء أثناء الجهاز الفني للمقاول
عدم مالئمة خبرة المقاول للقيام بأعمال المشروع
-المقاول"عدم حدوث انسجام بين أطراف المشروع الثالثة "االستشاري والمالك
تمسك آل طرف من األطراف الثالثة في المشروع بوجهة نظره
التوزيع الخاطئ لمعدات المشروع
روح التنافس لدى المقاول غير آافية النجاز األعمال
عدم القدرة على حماية األعمال المنجزة
فشل االختبارات الفنية
ضعف االتصاالت وحدوث سوء الفهم
عدم توفر السيولة النقدية لدى المقاول
الفني للمقاول وظيفة االستشاري مما يؤدي عدم فهم الطاقم لكثرة الجدل مع االستشاري
اعتماد المقاول على أساليب غير مقبولة لتحقيق أآبر قدر من الربح
عدم التزام المقاول بتعليمات االستشاري
اعتماد المقاول على مهندس حديث التخرج لكامل –إدارة العاملين –الفنية اإلدارة" المسئوليات في الموقع
استخدام برامج تشغيل البطالة في المشاريع
200
العامل المؤثر أوافق جدًا
%100
أوافق%75
أوافق أحيانا%50
ال أوافق%25
ال أوافق أبدًا%0
مسئوليات االستشاري ):3(مجموعة
رسمي عدم التزام طاقم االستشاري بالدوام ال
ضعف المهارات اإلدارية والفنية للطاقم الفني
التعليمات إعطاءالبطء في
سوء إدارة العقد من طرف االستشاري بالشكل والطريقة الصحيحة
سوء طريقة التحكم في الجودة
قضاء وقت طويل في اعتماد االختبارات وتشييك األعمال تشاريبين المالك واالس
التأخير في اعتماد مستخلصات المقاول
تأخر االستشاري في اعتماد المواد للمقاول
ندرة عقد االجتماعات الدورية لحل مشاآل العمل
وجود خالفات سابقة بين االستشاري والمقاول
مرآزية القرار لدى االستشاري
التهرب –الرشوة –الكسل "اري سوء السيرة الذاتية لالستش "إلخ... من الدوام
عدم وجود األمان الوظيفي لطاقم االستشاري
مسئوليات المالك): 4(مجموعة
"تغييرات في األعمال وتغيير في المواصفات"تعديل العقد
تكليف المقاول بأعمال إضافية من حين آلخر
ة للمشروع من قبل المالك ليست آافيةالمدة الزمنية المقترح
التدخل الغير الزم أو إعطاء "تشويش المالك لسير المشروع "تعليمات شفوية
عجلة المالك في تنفيذ األعمال دون وجود أولويات معينة
المتطلبات الغير عقالنية للمالك في مراحل المشروع األولى
وبة للعملالجودة العالية المطل
عدم وجود نظام موحد للعقود والمواصفات والشروط العامة للمشاريع
تأخر المالك في صرف المستحقات المالية للمقاول
201
العامل المؤثر
أوافق جدًا
%100
أوافق%75
أوافق أحيانا%50
ال أوافق%25
ال أوافق أبدًا%0
مسئوليات اإلدارة ): 5(مجموعة
–المقاول " ضعف وصول المعلومات ألطراف المشروع "المالك –االستشاري
–المقاول " المهارات اإلدارية الغير آافية ألطراف المشروع "االستشاري والمالك
بطء اتخاذ القرار بواسطة آل فريق في المشروع
المشروع إلنشاءالتخطيط الغير جيد
يز واالعتماد للمخططات التنفيذية للمشروعسوء التجه
عدم متابعة الجدول الزمني للمشروع مع التحديث المستمر له
ضعف النواحي التدريبية ونقص دعم اإلدارة ألفراد الفريق
التقدير الخاطئ لوقت وموارد آل نشاط في المشروع
الموقع ضعف متابعة المكتب الرئيسي لما يجري في
في االختبارات وتشييك األعمال من إتباعهابطء اآللية التي يتم قبل المهندس المشرف
إعادة األعمال التي ال تتطابق مع شروط الجودة
التصميم والتوثيق): 6(مجموعة
عدم وضوح المواصفات
مراجعة المخططات ببطء مع سوء التوزيع
م المشروعسوء تصمي
الرسومات الغير آاملة
سوء التوثيق وعدم وجود نظام مفصل مكتوب
عدم استخدام الطرق المنظمة والمرتبة في التوثيق
202
العامل المؤثر
أوافق جدًا
%100
أوافق%75
أوافق أحيانا%50
ال أوافق%25
ال أوافق أبدًا0
ال وآذلك في الوصول للمعلوماتالتأخير في تصميم األعم
ضعف خبرة المصمم
المواد ):7(مجموعة
التأخير في توريد المواد للموقع
نقل المواد داخل الموقع بصورة غير سليمة
االستخدام السيئ أو الغير مالئم للمواد
االفتقار إلى جداول سليمة لبرنامج استخدام المواد
ندرة وجود المواد في األسواق
عدم تخزين آميات آافية من المواد في الموقع
انخفاض جودة المواد المتوفرة
عدم االلتزام بالمواصفات للمواد التي يتم تشوينها في الموقع
تنفيذ المشروع ):8(مجموعة
الزيادة الكبيرة للساعات اإلضافية للعمال
ستخدام خطة عمل غير مالئمةا
االختيار الغير موفق للمعدات
استخدام البيروقراطية في تنظيم العمل داخل الموقع
درجة تعقيد المشروع
ارتفاع أسعار المواد والعمال
عدم " ضعف في ثقافة الشرآة بالنسبة للعمل في الموقع "استخدام ثقافة القوة
العمال والمعدات): 9(مجموعة
عطل المعدات عن العمل في الموقع
النقص في عدد عمال الموقع
203
العامل المؤثر
أوافق جدًا
%100
أوافق%75
أوافق أحيانا%50
ال أوافق%25
ال أوافق أبدًا%0
التنبؤ الغير دقيق بمعدل انتاجية العمال
ةنقص العمال المهر
نقص المعدات في العمل
ضعف صيانة المعدات
قلة المهارة لدى سائقي ومشغلي المعدات
آبر سن العاملين في الموقع
اختالف االنتماءات السياسية والحزبية للعاملين
العالقات التعاقدية): 10(مجموعة
حدوث الخالفات والنزاعات
مة الهيكل التنظيمي للربط بين أفراد المشروععدم مالئ
األخطاء والتناقضات في وثائق العقد
استخدام أنواع من العقود الغير مالئمة
قوانين الدولة): 11(مجموعة
عدم توفر قوانين البناء
البيروقراطية في المؤسسات الحكومية
مل من المؤسسات صعوبة الحصول على أذونات الع الحكومية
العوامل الخارجية): 12(مجموعة
"الخ...األرض و الموقع " الظروف المحيطة بالموقع
... نسبة التضخم ، العمالت (الظروف االقتصادية الصعبة )الخ
–الفيدك "تغيير القوانين والنظم التي تخص مشاريع االنشاء "الشروط العامة والخاصة
204
العامل المؤثر أوافق جدًا
%100
أوافق%75
أوافق أحيانا%50
ال أوافق%25
ال أوافق أبدًا%0
المشاآل مع الجيران
الظروف الجوية الصعبة
إغالق المعابر وحدوث االجتياحات واإلضرابات
:في قطاع غزة العوامل التي تؤثر على زيادة تكلفة المشاريع الهندسية
لتعبر عن مدى أهمية آل عامل من العوامل التي تؤثر على زيادة تكلفة المشاريع، وآذلك وضع أي " "بإمكانك وضع إشارة
:مالحظات تراها مناسبة
العامل المؤثر
أوافق جدًا
%100
أوافق%75
أوافق أحيانا%50
ال أوافق%25
ال أوافق أبدًا%0
تغيير التصميم
الظروف الجوية الغير متوقعة
التذبذب في أسعار المواد المستخدمة في المشروع
ضعف التنسيق في مرحلة التصميم
المراجعة الغير دقيقة للمخططات ووثائق العقد
عدم المقدرة على استكمال التصميم في مرحلة التناقص
الكاألعمال اإلضافية بطلب من الم
تغيير المالك لألمور القضائية الخاصة بالعقد مثل تغيير صياغة دعوة العطاء أو أحد الشروط
عدم التخطيط الجيد لتكاليف المشروع وعدم متابعة التكاليف خالل تنفيذ المشروع
تنفيذ األعمال االحتياطية
مالسوء التجهيز لتقارير التكلفة أثناء تنفيذ األع
التأخر في إبالغ المقاول بمعلومات المشروع أوًال بأول أثناء التنفيذ
205
العامل المؤثر أوافق جدًا
%100
أوافق%75
أوافق أحيانا%50
ال أوافق%25
ال أوافق أبدًا%0
المطالبات التعاقدية مثل تمديد الوقت مع المطالبة بالتكاليف المالية
المخططات األساسية أثناء عملية التنفيذ تعديل
حيرة طاقم اإلشراف في التعامل مع أسئلة المقاول الناتجة عن التأخير
األخطاء في جدول الكميات
التأخير في حساب تكلفة األعمال اإلضافية والتغييرات
مناورات بعض المقاولين في تحميل األسعار على بعض البنود
عدم الدقة عند حساب آميات المشروع
ضعف خبرة المقاول لنوع المشروع
ضعف خبرة المقاول في القوانين المحلية الخاصة بمشاريع االنشاء مثل العقود والشروط العامة
اإلعداد الغير مالئم للمشروع في التخطيط والتنفيذ
تأخير المواد الخام والمعدات التأخير في انجاز العمل بسبب
تغيير هدف المشروع بسبب سياسات الحكومة مثل نقل المشروع لمكان آخر
الميزانية المالية، عدم وجود احتياطي "عوائق الموارد مثل "الموارد للمقاول
التأخير في عمليات اتخاذ القرار بسب فشل الحكومة في تحديد نقاط المشروع
االختيار الغير مالئم لموقع المشروع
عدم التأهيل الفني للشرآة مع فقر الهيكل التنظيمي وفشل المغامرة
مثل الطرد من العمل أو توقف (قلق العمال من أي أخطار )المشروع
ضعف خبرة االستشاري وقلة وجود اتفاقيات التعاون مع المؤسسات األجنبية
للمحافظة على المواد في الموقع إداريةجود برامج عدم و
.تأخير االستالم االبتدائي للمشروع
"سنة في العادة" طول فترة الصيانة للمشروع
ارتفاع أسعار المواد بسبب اإلغالقات المتواصلة للمعابر
206
العامل المؤثر
أوافق جدًا
%100
أوافق%75
أوافق أحيانا%50
ال أوافق%25
ال أوافق أبدًا%0
.سوء توزيع العمال داخل الموقع
دفع المقاول ثمن الساعات اإلضافية للمهندس المشرف
مقابل الدوالر" الشيقل"تغيير أسعار العمالت المحلية
.احتكار التجار لمواد المشاريع
.استقطاب فنيين مهرة في العمل
" دم مقدرة المقاول للتكيف مع بيئة المشروع المحيطة ع ...األمان –بعد المكان - السكان
عدم التزام المانح بدفع أي تعويضات تنتج عن أي تدهور لألوضاع السياسية أو االقتصادية
سياسة المانح في ترسية العطاء على أقل األسعار
،،،وشكرًا لحسن تعاونكم