See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24077265

Contributors to construction delays

Article in Construction Management and Economics January 1998

DOI: 10.1080/014461998372556 Source: RePEc

CITATIONS READS

130 181

2 authors, including:

Dr Daniel W.M. Chan

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
109 PUBLICATIONS 2,828 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dr Daniel W.M. Chan on 06 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Hong Kong Polytechnic University]
On: 23 December 2014, At: 21:25
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:
Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Construction Management and Economics

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription
information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcme20

Contributors to construction delays

Mohan M. Kumaraswamy & Daniel W. M. Chan
Published online: 21 Oct 2010.

To cite this article: Mohan M. Kumaraswamy & Daniel W. M. Chan (1998) Contributors to construction
delays, Construction Management and Economics, 16:1, 17-29, DOI: 10.1080/014461998372556

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/014461998372556

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content)
contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our
licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this
publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed
by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable
for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in
relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial
or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use
can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Construction Management and Economics (1998) 16, 17 29

Contributors to construction delays

MOHAN M. KUMARASWAMY and DANIEL W. M. CHAN
Department of Civil and Structural Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong

Received 26 October 1995; accepted 8 July 1996

Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 21:25 23 December 2014

Projects can be delayed for a large number of reasons. The third phase of an investigation into such factors
focused on the causes of construction delays in Hong Kong. A questionnaire was based on 83 factors iden-
ti ed in previous phases of the investigation. Analysis of the responses reveals differences in perceptions of
the relative signi cance of factors between clients, consultants and contractors. There was general agreement
about the relative importance of delay factors such as unforeseen ground conditions. Improving productivity
is a useful approach to controlling delays. Important factors affecting productivity itself are thus examined
in more depth, with a view to enhancing productivity and reducing delays. The conclusions of this phase of
the investigation include a ranking of factors and factor categories that are perceived by different groups of
project participants to contribute to delays. For example, higher-ranking factors, such as unforeseen ground
conditions, and factor categories such as project-related factors, are found to merit special management atten-
tion in countering construction delays. The high degree of disagreement as discerned between the groups
of clients, consultants and contractors is indicative of their experiences, possible prejudices and lack of effec-
tive communication. It is also con rmed that productivity and other non-scope factors such as effective
communications should supplement the project scope factors incorporated into the construction time predic-
tion models that were proposed in the previous phases of this investigation.

Keywords: productivity, project management, delay, time, Hong Kong

Background and introduction
The rst two phases of an ongoing investigation into
factors affecting construction durations in Hong Kong
(Chan and Kumaraswamy, 1995) focused on project
scope variables such as project cost, oor area and
number of oors in buildings. The results were similar
to those previously derived by Bromilow et al. (1988)
in Australia and Kaka and Price (1991) in the UK, in
respect of the types of relationship and the correlation
between project time and cost. The previous investi-
gation also indicated the probable impact on construc-
tion durations of non-scope factors such as external and
management variables, in line with the conclusions
from a recent study in Australia (Walker, 1995a).
Previous reports on the ongoing study into construc-
tion time performance in Hong Kong noted that:
(a) productivity was a key factor needing further
0144 6193 1998 E & FN Spon
study (Kumaraswamy and Chan, 1995); and (b) site
organization variables also merited further investiga-
tion, in relation to project durations (Chan and
Kumaraswamy, 1995). Furthermore, the second phase
of the Hong Kong investigation also incorporated a
case study on construction plant and labour produc-
tivity. This indicated the contribution of productivity
levels to activity times, overall construction project
durations and construction delays, for example through
different utilization/idling patterns.
This paper highlights the principal ndings of the
third phase of the Hong Kong investigation, in respect
of the main factors causing delays, as perceived by
different industry subsectors: clients, consultants and
contractors. The degree of agreement/disagreement
between the subsectors as to the importance of
these factors is also indicated, to illustrate differences
in collective perspectives and any possible popular
 18
misconceptions or prejudices. The resulting sectoral
and combined rankings of the main causes of construc-
tion delays suggest suitable priorities in devising and
focusing strategies to counteract such critical contrib-
utors to delays in future projects.
In developing such counter-delay strategies, a focus
on productivity is justi ed by the main ndings of the
questionnaire and literature surveys, both of which
indicate a general perception of the signi cance of
`non-scope factors that either directly or indirectly
affect productivity levels and project durations. Lower
productivity than planned is thus identi ed as a key
contributor to (or a root cause of) delays, which there-
fore merits special attention.
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 21:25 23 December 2014
The ndings of this phase of the investigation are
framed within the context of relevant results of recent
research into construction productivity and other
factors affecting construction durations and construc-
tion delays in other countries, in order to consider the
general applicability of the conclusions.
Productivity, project durations and delays
Because productivity levels were found to be a principal
determinant of project durations (Chan and
Kumaraswamy, 1995), lowered productivity could
feasibly contribute signi cantly to project delays. The
potential for improvement is re ected in the nding that
`productivity rates in the United Kingdom varied
between one site and another by as much as three to
one (NEDO, 1989). Enhanced productivity is evidently
a necessary but not suf cient condition for reducing
project durations. While the productivity of each type of
resource (factor), such as labour, may be increased, by
motivation for example, the overall (total factor) pro-
ductivity will not be correspondingly enhanced unless a
proper balance and appropriate synergy is achieved.
This requires effective management of the resources and
their interactions within the project, as well as their
interactions with the external environment.
Conversely, project durations have been reduced in
practice, despite lower productivity levels, for example
by mobilizing more resources. Seemingly impossible
target dates have been achieved by such deployment
of additional resources and/or a sudden surge of
synergistic `partnering type teamwork by all project
participants who needed to meet a critical deadline.
Similarly, project delays have also been caused by
factors other than lowered productivity levels.
For the purposes of the third phase of this investi-
gation, potential delay factors were identi ed from a
literature review and the observations from the rst
two phases of the investigation. These were classi ed
into eight factor categories as follows:
Kumaraswamy and Chan
1. project-related;
2. client-related;
3. design team-related;
4. contractor-related;
5. materials-related;
6. labour-related;
7. plant/equipment-related;
8. external factors.
Although a certain degree of overlap may be antici-
pated between these categories, this was minimized
during the speci c allocations of the 83 factors. It was
noted that: (a) there may be interactions between
the factor categories, for example in one affecting the
other either positively or negatively; and (b) achieved
(vs planned) productivity levels can affect many of the
categories (as a common root cause), for example in
design team productivity, contractors organizational
productivity, labour productivity and plant produc-
tivity.
Projects can be delayed by the impact of such factor
categories; it was also noted that these may interact to
produce `multiplier effects, where problems in one
category may trigger further problems in another. For
example, weak contractor management may lower
labour morale, and decrease plant productivity as well.
Survey methodology
The survey questionnaire was designed on the basis of
83 previously identi ed delay-causing factors divided
into the foregoing eight factor categories. Respondents
were requested to rate the signi cance of each factor
as either extremely signi cant, very signi cant, moder-
ately signi cant, slightly signi cant or not signi cant.
The rst page of the ve-page questionnaire is repro-
duced in Appendix 1.
This questionnaire was sent to 400 clients, con-
sultants and contractors in Hong Kong in Decem-
ber 1994, requesting responses based on projects
completed between 1990 and 1994. Follow-up
communications led to the return of 147 completed
questionnaires. The distribution of the respondents, as
classi ed according to their industry grouping (clients,
consultants or contractors) and their main works
type (buildings or civil engineering) is indicated in
Appendix 2.
The pro le of the respondents in terms of their
average work experience in each such group, as indi-
cated in Appendix 3, con rms the considerable expe-
rience on which the responses are based. It is noted
that the subjective and general nature of the responses
required would be less reliable than more quanti able
information, or that obtained from speci c projects.
 Construction delays 19

However, it must be also noted that this survey supple-
ments (and is supplemented by) a previous survey,
which derived such quanti able data from speci c
projects (Chan and Kumaraswamy, 1995), but which
also indicated the need for wider experience-based
assessments of factors causing delays. The question-
naire survey was supplemented by follow-up interviews
to clarify some of the responses.
Survey ndings
Observations and analysis
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 21:25 23 December 2014
from 1 to 20 are also indicated in Tables 2 and 3.
These were assigned on the basis of the factor RIIs.
Where the RIIs were the same for two or more factors,
rank differentiation was achieved by examining the
distribution of the ratings against such factors. For
example, if more respondents had ranked one of the
factors as either `extremely signi cant or `very signif-
icant (i.e. more ranks of 4 or 5, than assigned to
another factor), then the former was assigned the
higher rank.
The next step distinguished between building works
and civil engineering works, thereby dividing each of the
three participant groups into two such work types, with
each work type containing the three groups of clients,

Table 1 presents a pro le of the magnitudes of time
overruns, as observed on different types of projects
during the rst survey in 1993/94. This pro le
indicates that project delays are fairly common in Hong
Kong.
Tables 2 and 3 summarize the responses in respect
of the 20 most important factors causing delays as
perceived by two of the six groups surveyed: contrac-
tors on building projects and consultants on civil
engineering projects, respectively. Four more of such
summarized response sheets were obtained for the
other groups surveyed, but are not reproduced here,
to save space. However, the consolidated summaries
that are presented later (in Tables 4, 5 and 8) re ect
the comparative results from the other groups as well.
The relative importance index (RII) derived to summa-
rize the importance of each `factor was computed as
o w
RII 5
A3 N groups) of the ten most signi cant factors in respect
where: w = weighting as assigned by each respondent
in a range from 1 to 5, where 1 implies `not signi -
cant and 5 implies `extremely signi cant ; A = the
highest weight (5); N = the total number in the sample.
The relative rankings of the factors within each group
consultants and contractors. The weighted average of
the RIIs for each of the previously selected 20 factors
from each group was next computed within each work
type, by combining it with the RIIs from the other two
groups. This combination of three RIIs to nd the
weighted average for each factor within each work type
was achieved by adding the products of (a) the RII for
each group and (b) the proportion of respondents from
the corresponding group (as a proportion of the total
respondents, as can be derived from Appendix 2).
For example, the weighted average of the factor `poor
site management and supervision in the `building
works type, as in Table 4, was computed as 0.800
(27/78) + 0.858 (24/78) + 0.822 (27/78) = 0.825,
as appears in Table 4.
The ten factors with the highest weighted averages
in the `buildings works and `civil engineering works
types are shown in Tables 4 and 5 respectively.
Figures 1 and 2 facilitate a visual comparison of the
RIIs, (as derived from the perceptions of the different
of the `building works and `civil engineering works
types respectively.
The overall RIIs for each of the eight factor cate-
gories were next determined for each group in turn,
by taking the mean of all factor RIIs in that category.

Table 1 Percentage of time overruns in the three project samples in the previous survey in Hong Kong

Actual percentage of Government Private Civil engineering

time overrun building projects (%) building projects (%) projects (%)
0 40 25 34
1 10 27 28 21
11 20 11 17 21
21 30 14 11 13
31 40 5 11 5
41 50 3 0 3
> 50 0 8 3
Mean percentage of
time overrun 9 17 14
Sample size 37 36 38
 20 Kumaraswamy and Chan

Table 2 Contractors responses and ranking of the signi cance of factors causing delays in building projects
(sample size = 27)

Hypothesized factors Percentage of Relative Rank

respondents scoring importance
> 4 3 < 2 index
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Delays in design information 88.89 7.41 3.70 0.889 1
Long waiting time for approval of drawings 85.19 11.11 3.70 0.822 2
Poor site management and supervision 81.48 14.82 3.70 0.822 3
Unrealistic contract durations imposed
by client 75.00 25.00 0.00 0.817 4
Mistakes and discrepancies in
design documents 81.48 14.82 3.70 0.815 5
Long waiting time for approval of
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 21:25 23 December 2014

test samples of materials 77.78 18.52 3.70 0.815 6

Inappropriate overall organizational structure
linking all project teams 66.67 29.63 3.70 0.807 7
Inadequate design team experience 81.48 11.11 7.41 0.8 8
Lack of communication between
consultant and contractor 74.07 22.23 3.70 0.8 9
Low speed of decision making involving
all project teams 74.07 14.82 11.11 0.8 10
Delays in subcontractors work 69.23 26.92 3.85 0.792 11
Inadequate contractor experience 62.96 33.34 3.70 0.785 12
Necessary variations 74.07 22.23 3.70 0.778 13
Disputes/con icts 77.78 14.81 7.41 0.770 14
Low speed of decision making within
each project team 70.37 22.22 7.41 0.770 15
Lack of communication between
client and consultant 66.67 22.22 11.11 0.770 16
Shortage of materials in markets 62.96 25.93 11.11 0.770 17
Client-initiated variations 74.07 22.23 3.70 0.763 18
Unforeseen ground conditions 66.67 25.92 7.41 0.756 19
Slow information ow between
project team members 62.96 37.04 0.00 0.756 20

The weighted averages of these overall RIIs from the
factor categories were obtained for three building works
groups as in Table 6; and for the three civil engineering
works groups as in Table 7.
The rank agreement factors (RAFs) were next com-
puted using the formula and methodology described
by Okpala and Aniekwu (1988) to measure the agree-
ment in ranking between groups of project participants.
The RAF can range from 0, indicating perfect agree-
ment, to higher values indicating increasing disagree-
ment. The percentage disagreement and the percentage
agreement (PA) were computed from the RAF, also
using the prescribed formulae.
Table 8 records the RAFs and PAs as computed for
the ten most signi cant factors causing delays, as
perceived by the different groups. Table 9 records the
RAFs and PAs in respect of the relative importance of
the eight factor categories themselves, as perceived by
the different groups. A further overall comparison
between the building works and civil engineering works
as a whole yields a RAF of 0.50 and a PA of 87.5%,
indicating a high overall correlation. Figure 3 illustrates
the proportions of agreement between the different
groups based on the PAs in Tables 8 and 9.
Speci c conclusions from the survey
While the detailed results as indicated in Tables 2 9
and Figures 1 3 contain a wealth of information, the
following speci c conclusions are relevant to the focus
of this paper.
There is a fair degree of agreement between the
groups in their ranking of the factor categories, partic-
ularly between clients and consultants. However, there
is an apparent divergence in perceptions between
clients and contractors, or even between consultants
 Construction delays 21

Table 3 Consultants responses and ranking of the signi cance of factors causing delays in civil engineering projects
(sample size = 25)

Hypothesized factors Percentage of Relative Rank

respondents scoring importance
> 4 3 < 2 index
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Unforeseen ground conditions 80.00 12.00 8.00 0.816 1
Inadequate contractor experience 80.00 16.00 4.00 0.8 2
Poor site management and supervision 68.00 28.00 4.00 0.792 3
Inappropriate type of foundations 78.26 13.04 8.70 0.791 4
Low speed of decision making involving
all project teams 75.00 12.50 12.50 0.783 5
Necessary variations 72.00 24.00 4.00 0.776 6
Client-initiated variations 76.00 16.00 8.00 0.768 7
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 21:25 23 December 2014

De ciencies in planning and scheduling

at preconstruction stage 72.00 12.00 16.00 0.76 8
Unsuitable leadership style of
contractor s construction manager 68.00 20.00 12.00 0.76 9
Improper control over site resource allocation 56.00 36.00 8.00 0.76 10
Slow information ow between
project team members 70.83 16.67 12.50 0.758 11
Shortage of plant/equipment 68.00 20.00 12.00 0.752 12
Unsuitable management structure and style 68.00 20.00 12.00 0.752 13
Low speed of decision making within
each project team 62.50 33.33 4.17 0.75 14
Inadequate managerial skills 64.00 28.00 8.00 0.736 15
Shortage of skilled labour 60.00 32.00 8.00 0.736 16
Inappropriate type of main construction 70.83 20.83 8.34 0.733 17
Small extent of design information
available at construction start 66.66 16.67 16.67 0.733 18
Shortage of managerial and supervisory
personnel 72.00 12.00 16.00 0.728 19
Delays in subcontractors work 60.00 32.00 8.00 0.728 20

and contractors, on many speci c factors themselves:
this is re ected in the percentage agreements (PAs) in
Tables 8 and 9 and Figure 3.
For example, the clients and consultants appear to
agree on the signi cance of the contractor-related
factor category in contributing to delays in both
building works and civil engineering works, as per
Tables 6 and 7. However, an examination of the signif-
icant `factors so identi ed does not appear to re ect
this general perception to a corresponding extent in
the case of the speci c factors in Tables 4 and 5. This
apparent anomaly could perhaps be explained, for
example, as a general `conditioning of one group (such
as consultants) vis- -vis another (such as contractors),
which may manifest itself in a random distribution of
adverse responses relating to the latter group in
general, i.e. within the relevant factor category, despite
a lack of agreement on speci c factors.
The top ten signi cant factors as isolated separately
for building works and civil engineering works, as iden-
ti ed in Tables 4 and 5 respectively, yield six common
factors, as listed in Table 10.
Of the remaining four signi cant factors from
building works, two are contractor related, one is
project related, and the other is design-team related.
On the other hand, three of the four remaining factors
from civil engineering works are contractor related,
with the other classi ed as labour related also
usually being within the purview of the contractor.
It is evident that there are differences in the percep-
tions of different groups as to the causes of construc-
tion delays. Such perceptions may be attributed to a
certain degree of group bias, arising either from some
speci c experiences, from limited exposure, and/or
from conditioning by colleagues. Even though the
recorded experience levels of the survey respondents
seem suf ciently high, and not dissimilar between
groups as in Appendix 3, some bias is evident in the
group perceptions. Perhaps the wording of the factors
and the classi cation of the factor categories in the
 22 Kumaraswamy and Chan

Table 4 Relative importance indices (RII) of the ten most signi cant factors causing delays in building works (in descend-
ing order of signi cance)

Hypothesized Factor Clients Consultants Contractors Weighted

factor category (RII) (RII) (RII) average
Poor site management Contractor 0.800 0.858 0.822 0.825
and supervision related
Unforeseen ground Project 0.763 0.842 0.756 0.814
conditions related
Delays in design Design 0.689 0.742 0.889 0.775
information team related
Lack of communication Project 0.741 0.783 0.8 0.774
between consultant related
and contractor
Inadequate contractor Contractor 0.763 0.765 0.785 0.771
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 21:25 23 December 2014

experience related
Low speed of Project 0.733 0.808 0.800 0.761
decision making related
involving all project
teams
Client-initiated Client 0.741 0.808 0.763 0.757
variations related
Necessary variations Project 0.756 0.783 0.778 0.756
of works related
Delays in subcontractors s Contractor 0.708 0.767 0.792 0.755
work related
Improper control over Contractor 0.769 0.775 0.719 0.754
site resource allocation related

Table 5 Relative importance indices (RII) of the ten most signi cant factors causing delays in civil engineering works (in
descending order of signi cance)

Hypothesized Factor Clients Consultants Contractors Weighted

factor category (RII) (RII) (RII) average
Unforeseen ground Project 0.826 0.816 0.8 0.814
conditions related
Poor site management Contractor 0.878 0.792 0.710 0.796
and supervision related
Low speed of decision Project 0.755 0.783 0.743 0.761
making involving all related
project teams
Client-initiated Client 0.757 0.768 0.743 0.757
variations related
Necessary variations Project 0.678 0.776 0.733 0.756
of works related
Inadequate contractor Contractor 0.817 0.8 0.632 0.755
experience related
Unsuitable management Contractor 0.773 0.752 0.7 0.743
structure and style of related
contractor
Contractor s de ciencies in Contractor 0.8 0.76 0.648 0.739
planning and scheduling related
at preconstruction stage
Shortage of managerial Contractor 0.765 0.728 0.695 0.730
and supervisory personnel related
Unsuitable leadership Contractor 0.752 0.76 0.67 0.730
style of contractor s related
construction manager
 Construction delays 23
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 21:25 23 December 2014

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

Figure 2 Comparison of the relative importance indices (RIIs) of the factors considered most signi cant by clients, consul-
tants and contractors of civil engineering works (as in Table 5): 1. unforeseen ground conditions; 2. poor site management
and supervision; 3. low speed of decision making involving all project teams; 4. client-initiated variations; 5. necessary
variations of works; 6. inadequate contractor experience; 7. unsuitable management structure and style of contractor;
8. contractor s de ciencies in planning and scheduling at preconstruction stage; 9. shortage of managerial and supervisory
personnel; 10. unsuitable leadership style of contractor s construction manager
 24 Kumaraswamy and Chan

Table 6 Relative importance indices (RII) and ranks (R) for different factor categories, and by different survey respondents
in the building works grouping

Factor category Client Consultant Contractor Weighted

average
RII R RII R RII R RII R
Project related 0.588 6 0.645 4 0.672 5 0.635 5
Client related 0.572 8 0.609 7 0.649 7 0.610 8
Design team related 0.641 3 0.677 3 0.778 1 0.700 2
Contractor related 0.708 2 0.711 1 0.699 3 0.706 1
Materials 0.606 4 0.600 8 0.681 4 0.630 6
Labour 0.717 1 0.682 2 0.662 6 0.687 3
Plant/equipment 0.577 7 0.636 5 0.634 8 0.615 7
External 0.598 5 0.632 6 0.746 2 0.660 4
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 21:25 23 December 2014

Table 7 Relative importance indices (RII) and ranks (R) for different factor categories, and by different survey respondents
in the civil engineering grouping

Factor category Client Consultant Contractor Weighted

average
RII R RII R RII R RII R
Project related 0.619 4 0.646 4 0.615 5 0.628 5
Client related 0.526 7 0.610 7 0.571 7 0.570 7
Design team related 0.639 3 0.681 2 0.677 1 0.666 2
Contractor related 0.701 1 0.701 1 0.632 4 0.680 1
Materials 0.520 8 0.591 8 0.555 8 0.556 8
Labour 0.665 2 0.680 3 0.643 3 0.665 3
Plant/equipment 0.604 6 0.645 5 0.574 6 0.610 6
External 0.605 5 0.618 6 0.672 2 0.630 4

Table 8 Cross-comparison of the relative importance of Table 9 Cross-comparison of the relative importance of
the ten most signi cant factors causing delays as perceived factor categories causing delays as perceived by the different
by the different groups of respondents groups of respondents
Project participant Rank agreement Percentage Project participant Rank agreement Percentage
factor agreement factor agreement
Building Civil Building Civil Building Civil Building Civil
Clients and Clients and
consultants 2.0 2.6 60 48 consultants 1.50 0.50 62.5 87.5
Consultants and Consultants and
contractors 3.4 2.4 32 52 contractors 2.50 1.25 37.5 68.75
Clients and Clients and
contractors 4.2 3.6 16 28 contractors 1.75 1.25 56.25 68.75

questionnaire itself may also be re-examined to mini-
mize any defensive posturing or `buck passing by
different groups; but a residual bias is apparent even
if allowances are made for this possible distortion.
Unfortunately, such biases may be counter-
productive: for example, when blaming other groups,
rather than examining the real causes of delays. Such
differences of perception and their consequences
can also lead to claims for extension of time that
generate further pressures to direct or de ect blame,
rather than seek root causes and solutions.
A re-examination of Tables 6 and 7 relating to signif-
icant factor categories indicates that project-related
factor categories rank only fth in signi cance, whereas
 Construction delays
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 21:25 23 December 2014
Figure 3 Percentage agreement (PA) between different
groups as to (a) factors and (b) factor categories contributing
to project delays; based on Tables 8 and 9 respectively
contractor-related, design-team-related and labour-
related factor categories rank rst, second and third
respectively. This suggests that project- (or scope-)
related factors are not that signi cant in the context
of delays (although they are important in establishing
the project durations at the outset), in comparison with
the aforementioned rst three factor categories, and
even the fourth (external conditions). Furthermore,
case studies and interviews during this investigation
indicated the importance of productivity levels of the
contractor, of the design team, and of the labour itself,
in contributing to the signi cance of the rst three
(as ranked) aforementioned factor categories. It was
also noted that the wide variations possible in such
productivity levels could well contribute to project
delays (Chan and Kumaraswamy, 1995).
The foregoing conclusion re-con rms previous nd-
ings, from this investigation and from the literature, as
to the signi cance of productivity in determining
project durations and in contributing to delays. This
25
Table 10 The six common signi cant factors from both
building works and civil engineering works
Factor Factor category
Unforeseen ground conditions Project related
Poor site management and
supervision Contractor related
Low speed of decision making
involving all project teams Project related
Client-initiated variations Client related
Necessary variations of works Project related
Inadequate contractor experience Contractor related
also suggests a re-examination of methods of measuring
and improving productivity levels in construction
projects, as one important approach to avoiding or
minimizing delays.
A re-examination of aspects of construction
productivity that contribute to project
delays
Concept and classi cations
Commencing with the basic conceptualization of
productivity as output/input, Prokopenko (1987) iden-
ti ed three main productivity factor groups as:
1. job related;
2. resource related;
3. environment related.
He also distinguished between (a) external (non-con-
trollable) and (b) internal (controllable) factors, further
subdividing the latter into hard factors (those related to
product, plant and equipment, technology, materials
and energy) and soft factors (people, organization and
systems, work methods and management styles).
The importance of total factor productivity as against
single factor productivity to construction organizations
and to the industry itself has been reported previ-
ously (Ganesan, 1984). The former takes into account
all input resources (factors), whereas the latter is
usually useful only in the case of a critical or scarce
resource, such as skilled labour.
Improving productivity levels
The observations from the Hong Kong survey in the
current investigation indicated the perceived impor-
tance of contractor-related, design-team-related and
labour-related factor categories. This appears to: (a)
align with the concept of increasing total factor produc-
tivity and of synergizing the inputs to optimize the
 26
outputs; and (b) provide a reminder of the importance
of organizational variables in both contractors and
design organizations. For example, the rapid response
and constructive inputs of design teams to site prob-
lems enhance productivity and reduce delays.
Special work study techniques such as multiple-
activity charts and activity sampling have been adapted
and developed for measuring and improving construc-
tion productivity (Heap, 1987; McCaffer and Harris,
1995), but there is little evidence as yet of their popular
usage in the industry, for example in structured and
scienti c approaches to developing improved work
methods and in establishing and improving work
norms. Such techniques and tools can be useful to
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 21:25 23 December 2014
organizations with a longer-term perspective: i.e. those
prepared to invest in improved productivity despite
short-term pressures or priorities. Their usefulness is
underlined by the signi cantly variable construction
productivity levels indicated by the literature (NEDO,
1989); and by the previous (second) phase of this
investigation (Chan and Kumaraswamy, 1995), which
indicated potential improvements through better plant
and labour utilization and appropriate methodologies,
for example in concreting.
Factors affecting productivity and project
durations
Lim and Price (1995) cited (a) the following seven
factors identi ed as affecting overall construction
productivity in Singapore:
1. buildability;
2. structure of the industry;
3. training;
4. mechanization and automation;
5. foreign labour;
6. standardization;
7. building controls.
and (b) the following ten factors identi ed as affecting
labour productivity:
1. quality, number and balance of labour force;
2. motivation of labour force;
3. degree of mechanization;
4. continuity of work as affected by supply of
materials, performance of other contractors
or subcontractors, availability and adequacy of
technical information, and variations;
5. complexity of project;
6. required quality of nished work;
7. method of construction;
8. type of contract;
9. quality and number of managers;
10. weather.
Kumaraswamy and Chan
The apparent complexity is magni ed when consid-
ering: (a) the possibilities of interactions between such
factors affecting labour productivity, and (b) the fact
that similarly complex networks of factors may simul-
taneously affect other factor productivities, such as that
of equipment. The consequential impacts on project
activities could well lead to project delays.
It is thus necessary to focus on critical factors
affecting overall (or total factor) productivity. Maloney
(1983) con rmed that labour has a signi cant in uence
on construction productivity, and that management in
turn has a major impact on labour productivity. He
identi ed sets of speci c driving, induced and restraining
forces acting positively and negatively on productivity
levels, and formulated approaches based on such forces
to facilitate productivity improvements.
Motivation of both management and labour can be
hypothesized as a key contributor to productivity.
Methods of motivating personnel to increase produc-
tivity have been demonstrated by Khan (1993),
through applications of different human relations theo-
ries of motivation. Such enhancement of productivity
could help to counteract delays induced by other
causes. Conversely, a lack of proper management can,
even `by default , mobilize factors that adversely affect
productivity and lead to project delays.
Other factors affecting construction time
performance
The literature review of recent research also revealed
many factors that were found to affect construction
time performance, apart from those factors that
achieved such effects through their initial impact on
productivity levels.
For example, Nkado (1995) demonstrated the prior-
itization of construction-time-in uencing factors that
can be incorporated in an information system, which
could then help in planning project durations. He used
12 scope-related variables, such as gross oor area, to
develop this particular model, but had also previously
examined a total of 33 time-in uencing factors that
had been identi ed from the literature. From the latter,
he identi ed the ten most important factors, including
for example client and designers priority on construction
time. He also identi ed the ten least important factors
from this set of 33, including for example the form of
contract and its suitability for the project.
In a similar context, an investigation of the rela-
tionship between the building team, procurement
method and project performance by Naoum and
Mustapha (1995) did not yield enough evidence to
con rm the claim that alternative procurement
 Construction delays
methods shorten construction times. Parallels can thus
be drawn with the work of Walker (1995b) in Australia,
which `revealed that contract type does not affect the
speed of construction , and that several client-related
factors proved more signi cant, particularly as to `how
well the clients or their representatives relate to the
project team . Walker (1995a) also found that the `four
factors affect(ing) construction time performances and
best practice worldwide were:
1. construction management effectiveness;
2. the sophistication of the client and the client s
representative in terms of creating and main-
taining positive project team relationships with
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 21:25 23 December 2014
the construction management and design team;
3. design team effectiveness in communicating
with construction management and client s
representative teams;
4. a small number of factors describing project
scope and complexity.
Such ndings collaborate the results of the question-
naire survey in Hong Kong, as to the relative signi -
cance of non-scope factor categories, such as
`contractor related , `design team related and `labour
related in contributing the construction delays.
Speci c factors also highlighted as signi cant in this
study included poor site management and supervision,
low speed of decision making involving all project
teams, delays in design information, and lack of
communication between consultant and contractor.
Concluding observations
The third phase of this investigation into factors
affecting construction durations led to the identi ca-
tion of some major causes of construction project
delays. Both the questionnaire survey results in Hong
Kong and the review of recent relevant research
revealed the signi cance of non-scope contributors
such as project participant priorities and relationships.
Such contributors affect project durations both
directly, and indirectly through their effects on produc-
tivity levels.
For example, the questionnaire survey indicated the
perceived importance of the impact on construction
delays of the contractor-related, design-team-related
and labour-related factor categories. The particular
contribution of variable productivity levels to these
signi cant factor categories was noted, leading to an
examination of factors affecting productivity itself and
of how productivity could be considerably enhanced
and delays minimized, through techniques such as
work study. Another aspect of consistently increased
27
productivity levels, although not explored in this paper,
is the possibility of reductions in the planned project
durations themselves, in the rst instance. An integra-
tion of these ndings with those from the previous
phases of the ongoing study (Chan and Kumaraswamy,
1995) con rms that productivity is one of the key
factors in determining both planned and achieved
project durations, and that while project scope factors
must be used to model the planned project durations,
other non-scope factors need to be incorporated in the
model, in setting the baselines and in adjusting for
particular priorities, capabilities and motivations of the
interacting project participants.
The questionnaire survey in this investigation also
revealed differences in perceptions as to causes of
delays by different groups of project participants:
clients, consultants and contractors in building works
as well as in civil engineering works. It is suggested
that these apparent collective biases of different
industry groups may often direct blame for delays to
other groups, and discourage a search for the root
causes of delays and solutions to same. The origin of
such biases may be traced to group conditioning, as
well as to the present adversarial nature of the contrac-
tual systems, including the clashes, blame allocation
and defensive postures induced by the not uncommon
`extension of time claims and associated costs in
construction contracts.
Studies on causes of project delays must thus
make allowances for such biases when verifying the
real reasons, whether through interviews or through
selected project documents. Furthermore, special
efforts must be made to overcome such biases, as well
as to analyse and address the factors and factor cate-
gories identi ed in this study and the literature, as
signi cant contributors to project delays. Particular
strategies may be designed to address the signi cant
factors, such as unforeseen ground conditions, poor
site management and supervision, and delays in design
information. As a general principle, for example, more
intensive site investigations and stronger management
are probably warranted in projects where delays can
be crucial. Of course, such principles need to be trans-
lated into practice through appropriate guidelines and
project-speci c procedures.
This study thus provides pointers to appropriate
strategies and particular measures that may be adopted
to avoid and/or mitigate project delays by focusing on
the direct and indirect common contributors to same,
such as delays in design information and productivity
levels. While the present survey was based in Hong
Kong, the international literature revealed general simi-
larities that may merit detailed comparative investiga-
tions elsewhere.
 28
References
Bromilow, F.J., Hinds, M.F. and Moody N.F. (1988) The
time and cost performance of building contracts
1976 1986. The Building Economist, 27, September 4.
Chan, D.W.M. and Kumaraswamy M.M. (1995) A study
of the factors affecting construction durations in Hong
Kong. Construction Management and Economics, 13(4),
319 33.
Ganesan, S. (1984) Construction productivity. Habitat
International, 8(34), 29 42.
Heap, A. (1987) Improving Site productivity. ILO, Geneva.
Kaka, A. and Price, A.D.F. (1991) Relationship between
value and duration of construction projects. Construction
Management and Economics, 9(4), 383 400.
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 21:25 23 December 2014
Khan, M.S. (1993) Methods of motivating for increased
productivity. ASCE Journal of Management in Engineering,
9(2), 148 56.
Kumaraswamy, M.M. and Chan, D.W.M. (1995) Deter-
minants of construction duration. Construction Management
and Economics, 13(3), 209 17.
Lim, E.C. and Price, A.D.F. (1995) Construction produc-
tivity measurements for residential buildings in Singapore,
Proceedings of First International Conference on Construction
Project Management, Singapore, January, pp. 605 12.
Maloney, W.F. (1983) Productivity improvement: the in u-
Appendix 1: First page of ve-page questionnaire for research project
SECTION A: GENERAL ORGANIZATION INFORMATION
Date information collected
Name of organization
Major type of work involved
(e.g. buildings, roads or others)
Contact person and designation
Relevant working experience
Contact address
Contact phone No.
Kumaraswamy and Chan
ence of labour. ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, 109(3), 321 34.
McCaffer, R. and Harris, F.C. (1995) Modern Construction
Management. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Naoum, S.G. and Mustapha, F.H. (1995) Relationship
between the building team, procurement methods and
project performance. Journal of Construction Procurement,
1(1), 38 49.
NEDO (1989) Promoting Productivity in the Construction
Industry. National Economic Development Of ce,
U.K.
Nkado, R.N. (1995) A model for predicting and planning
construction times at early design stages, Proceedings of
Eleventh Annual ARCOM Conference, ARCOM, Septem-
ber, pp. 298 307.
Okpala, D.C. and Aniekwu, A.N. (1988) Causes of high
costs of construction in Nigeria. ASCE Journal of Construc-
tion Engineering and Management, 114(2), 233 44.
Prokopenko, J. (1987) Productivity Management. ILO,
Geneva.
Walker, D.H.T. (1995a) An investigation into construction
time performance. Construction Management and Economics,
13(3), 263 74.
Walker, D.H.T. (1995b) The in uence of client and project
team relationships upon construction time performance.
Journal of Construction Procurement, 1(1), 4 20.
year(s)
Contact Fax. No.
 SECTION B: FACTORS INCREASING CONSTRUCTION DURATIONS OF PROJECTS
COMPLETED DURING 1990 1994 IN HONG KONG

Please indicate the signi cance 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 signi cant (100) V.S. = very signi cant (75)
M.S. = moderately signi cant (50) S.S. = slightly signi cant (25)
N.S. = not signi cant (0)

Hypothesized factors E.S. V.S. M.S. S.S. N.S. Remarks

(100) (75) (50) (25) (0)
1. Project-related factors
Downloaded by [Hong Kong Polytechnic University] at 21:25 23 December 2014

Necessary variations
Inappropriate type of contract
used (e.g. traditional, design-
and-build, etc.)
Type of project
(e.g. building or civil)
End use of product
(e.g. housing, of ce or bridge)
Work type (e.g. new,
refurbished, mixed, etc.)
Large gross oor area
of building

Appendix 2: Distribution pro le of respondents to the survey questionnaire

Project category Clients Consultants Contractors Total

Building works 27 24 27 78
Civil works 23 25 21 69
Total 50 49 48 147

Appendix 3: Work experience pro le (in years) of respondents to the survey questionnaire

Project category Clients Consultants Contractors Mean

Building works 15.2 15.0 13.2 14.4
Civil works 13.9 17.4 18.8 16.7

View publication stats