Delays in construction projects - Causes and impacts
(presented at the 6th IESM Conference, October 2015, Seville, Spain) © I4e2 2015
Amílcar Arantes, Pedro Fernandez da Silva
CERIS, CESUR, Instituto Superior Técnico
Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal
Emails: amilcar.arantes@tecnico.ulisboa.pt,
pedrofernandezdasilva@gmail.com
Abstract— The main aim of this paper is to identify the main
causes for the delays in the Portuguese construction industry and
its impact, with the purpose of increasing knowledge on the
causes and impacts of delays in construction projects. The
Relative Importance Index was adopted to classify the
importance of the 47 causes and six impacts identified causes of
delays. Results show the main causes of delay are slow decision-
making, changes to orders, unrealistic timescales and poor
contract specifications, financial constraints on the contractor
and the type of bidding and contract award process. The main
impacts are time and cost overruns and disputes. Factor analysis
revealed eight high-level causes that result in 26 of the original
causes. Finally, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated
to find the relationship between the extracted factors (latent
causes) and impacts, revealing that lack of commitment and sub-
standard contracts are positively correlated with all impacts, and
poor consultant performance is negatively correlated with time
overrun. These findings are expected to improve the scientific
community’s knowledge of construction management.
Keywords— construction industry; construction delays; relative
importance index;
I. INTRODUCTION
Regardless the type and localization, delays in construction
projects have always been an important issue. Assaf and Al-
Hejji [1] define delay in construction as the time overrun either
beyond the date the contract parties agree upon for delivery of
a project, or beyond the completion date specified in the
respective contract. A project is considered successful if it
meets the requirements of 3 major indicators: time, cost and
quality. However, the timely completion of a project was
frequently seen as one of the major parameters for evaluating
project success [2].
To overcome delays, projects are prolonged or speeded
with additional costs. As project delays are so recurrent, it is
common practice for a contingency cost to be considered in the
contract, which is usually a fraction of the total contract price
[3]. As a consequence of delays, a variety of problems can
result, particularly financial problems, which frequently result
in conflicts between the entities involved: contractors,
consultants and developers. Notwithstanding all the efforts, the
project design and construction complexity makes it often hard
to find the causes of the delays, which often are interconnected
[4]. The Portuguese scenario is no different and delays affect a
Luís Miguel D. F. Ferreira
Departamento de Economia, Gestão e Engenharia Industrial,
GOVCOPP
Universidade de Aveiro, Portugal
Email: lmferreira@ua.pt
large fraction of construction projects. Nevertheless, in recent
years, the financial crisis has resulted in stagnation in the
industry, forcing some firms to move abroad or declare
bankruptcy. Consequently, the industry is becoming
increasingly more competitive and improving the time and cost
factors has become indispensable for contractors. Concerning
this matter, a number of studies have been done but outside the
Portuguese context. Thus, the aim of this research work is to
identify the main causes and impacts of delays in the
Portuguese construction industry and comprehend the links
between them. It is also important to assess whether there are
differences in perception between the entities involved in
construction projects.
II. DELAYS IN THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
In recent decades several researchers have studied the
causes and impacts of delays in the construction industry.
Mansfield et al. [5], using a questionnaire survey conducted
with contractors, consultants and developers, found 16 major
causes of delays and cost overruns in Nigerian construction
projects, and they concluded that the main causes of delays had
to do with finance and payment issues, poor contract
management, shortage in materials, inaccurate estimates and
price fluctuations.
Ogunlana et al. [6] led a study on causes of delays in
Thailand, analyzing 12 skyscraper projects and they identified
26 causes and concluded that material shortages, especially
cement, nonexistence of qualified workforce, change orders by
the developers and lack of contractor experience were the most
important ones. Chan and Kumaraswamy [3] conducted
questionnaire survey in Hong Kong with contractors,
consultants and developers with an aim to classifying the
relative importance of 83 causes of delays. The main causes of
delay identified were poor site management and supervision,
unforeseen ground conditions, low speed of decision making
involving all project teams, developer initiated variations and
necessary variations of work. Odeh and Battaineh [7]
conducted a questionnaire survey in Jordan to evaluate the
relative importance of 28 pre-selected causes of delays in
traditional construction projects. They determined that the
major causes of delays were inadequate contractor experience,
developer interference, delay in progress payments by the
developer, slow decision making by the developer, improper
planning, low productivity level of labor and problems with
subcontractors.
More recently, Doloi, Sawhney, Iyer, and Rentala [8] used
a survey to find the main causes of delays in construction in
India. The most important causes, from a set of 45 causes, were
delays in material delivery by vendors, non-availability of
drawings on time, financial constraints on the contractor,
increases in scope of work and obtaining permissions from
local authorities. Gündüz and Özdemir [9] led a survey to
define the relative importance of 83 different causes of delays
in the Turkish construction projects. They concluded that
inadequate contractor experience, ineffective project planning
and scheduling, poor site management and supervision, design
changes by the developer and late delivery of materials were
the most important causes of delays. Finally, Fallahnejad [10]
studied the causes of delays in 24 gas pipeline projects in Iran
and concluded that the main causes of delays were inability on
the part of contractors to provide imported materials,
unrealistic contract durations imposed by the developer, slow
delivery of materials by the developer, slow land expropriation
due to resistance from occupants and change orders by
developers.
Studies on the impact of delays in construction projects
were also developed, often in parallel with studies on the
causes of delay, although the number of studies on this subject
is smaller. Aibinu and Jagboro[11] examined and evaluated the
impact of delays in the Nigerian construction industry and
through a survey they identified six impacts of delays: time
overrun, cost overrun, dispute, total abandonment of the
contract, arbitration and litigation. Time and cost overruns
were identified as the most frequent effects of delays in
construction projects.
Manavazhi and Adhikari [12] analyzed the impact of delays
in the delivery of materials and equipment to construction sites
for 22 highway projects in Nepal. The authors carried out a
quantitative analysis of the impact of these delays and found
that the actual impact of these delays was on average
approximately 0.5% of the project’s total budgeted cost.
Sambasivan and Soon [13] conducted a survey to identify
the causes of delay and their impact on project completion in
the construction industry in Malaysia. They concluded that
delays in construction projects were empirically associated
with the causes of delay linked with the project developer and
contractor. The results also showed that financial overruns
were correlated with the causes related to the contractor.
Although the vast majority of studies primarily address the
causes of delay rather than their impact, the truth is that many
studies note probable relations between causes and impacts.
Mansfield et al. [5] and Frimpong et al. [14] identified the
association between delay causes connected with the
developer, the supervision, materials and time and cost
overruns in construction projects in Nigeria and Ghana,
respectively. Chan and Kumaraswamy [3] concluded that the
causes of delay related to the developer and to the supervision
were linked to the failure to meet deadlines in construction
projects in Hong Kong, while Odeh and Bataineh [7] found
that the causes of contract delay were linked to the regular
conflicts in construction projects in Jordan. Assaf and Al-Hejji
[1] showed the link between the causes of contractor delay and
time overruns in construction projects in Saudi Arabia.
From the literature reviewed, it is clear the causes and
effects of delays in construction projects vary depending on the
type of construction project and the country in which it is
taking place. Moreover, some of the authors also suggest
comparable studies should be carried out in other countries and
on other types of construction project [1], [13]. The present
study, therefore, contributes to increasing knowledge about the
cause and impact of delays in construction projects.
III. METHODOLOGY
In the present research study a questionnaire survey
methodology was used to evaluate the importance of the causes
and impacts of delays in construction projects. This
methodology has been employed in similar studies [3], [5],
[7]–[9], [12], [13]. For the success of this methodology it is
essential that the questionnaire is clear and has no errors or
inconsistencies in its design. For that, basic rules for social
surveys were used in the design of the questionnaire [15] and a
five point Likert scale was used (1 - very low to 5 - very high)
to measure the relative importance of the causes and impacts of
delays.
A total of 47 causes of delays (divided into 9 categories)
and 6 impacts reported in the literature, and validated by
construction experts, were considered adequate to capture the
Portuguese construction reality and were used in the
questionnaire (Tables I and II, respectively). After, a pilot test
was conducted with a restricted number of construction firms
to check the efficacy in gathering information and to identify
possible errors or misinterpretations. After that, a few changes
were done in the questionnaire.
The questionnaire was then disseminated by email to a
random sample of 150 contractors, 100 consultants and 70
developers. To avoid non-response bias, which can reduce the
quality of the results, all recommendations by Forza [16]
concerning size and design of sample and non-response bias
were considered. A total of 139 questionnaires were returned,
respectively: 62 by contractors, 46 by consultants and 31 by
developers. Finally, the data from the questionnaire responses
was then analyzed using statistical tools.
IV. RESULTS
A. Ranking of causes
In this study the Relative Importance Index (RII) method
was used to assess the relative importance of causes and
impacts of delay in construction. This method has been used by
several authors in similar studies [8], [9], [12]. For each cause
or impact the particular RII is calculated as follows (1):
RII = ∑ W/(A x N) (1)
Where W is the importance given to each cause or impact
(1 to 5), A the highest weight (A = 5) and N the total number of
responses.
 TABLE I. CAUSES OF DELAY of bidding and contract award process”. Respondents also
Category Causes of delay indicated “delay in progress payments by owner”, “improper
C1 - Delay in progress payments by developer planning and scheduling”, “developer interference, “increase in
C2 - Slow decision making by developer scope of work” and “mistakes and discrepancies in drawings”
Developer

C3 - Developer interference as important causes of delay. These results, considering the 10

C4 - Delay in handing over the site to contractor by developer
C5 - Increase in scope of work
C6 - Change orders
C7 - Bureaucracy in developer’s organization
C8 - Delays and changes of subcontractors
C9 - Inadequate construction methods
C10 - Improper planning and scheduling
Contractor
most important causes are aligned, if not exactly, at least in
terms of the causes’ natures, with the results existent in other
research works [8], [10], [13].
However, it is also important to find the differences in the
ranking of categories of causes between the different types of
respondents, which can be seen in Table VI. The categories of

C11 - Mistakes during construction

C12 - Inadequate contractor experience
C13 - Site accidents
C14 - Poor site management and supervision by contractor
C15 - Financial constraints on part of contractor
C16 - Delay in site mobilization by contractor
C17 - Inflexibility of consultant
Consultant
causes related with the developer and to the contract and
contractual relationships are perceived as the most important.
As one would expect, the major difference in responses is
related to the importance of the causes related to the contractor.
Developers and consultants agree to classify the importance of
this category of causes, but contractors give more importance

C18 - Delay in approval of drawings to “design” and “consultant” related causes. One can conclude
C19 - Delay in quality control
C20 - Lack of control over subcontractor
that the perceptions of the consultants and developers are more
C21 - Waiting time for approval of tests and inspections aligned with each other than they are with the contractors.
C22 - Inadequate material quality Correlation analysis can be used to study the degree of
C23 - Damaged materials agreement between respondent types once the data is gathered
C24 - Shortage in materials on a Likert-scale [17]. Analyzing the Spearman’s rank of
Material

C25 - Delay in material delivery correlation presented in Table V produces a statistical

C26 - Changes in material specifications during construction significance of 0.01, which reinforces the previous conclusion
C27 - Delay in materials procurement that the most significant differences in opinions are between
C28 - Change in material prices
C29 - Lack of qualified Labor
contractors and developers. These findings, which are aligned
with the findings by Doloi et al. [8], supports the findings by
equipment
Labor and

C30 - Low Labor productivity

C31 - Equipment availability and failure
C32 - Inadequate equipment
C33 - Mistakes and discrepancies in drawings
Design C34 - High complexity of drawings
C35 - Delay in producing design documents
C36 - Bidding and contract award process
Contract and
Sambasivan and Soon [13].
Respondents were asked to rank impacts according to their
frequency. There was a consensus (in terms of impact ranking)
between developers, contractors and consultants, which is in
line with the results obtained by Aibinu and Jagboro [11]
(Table VI), although the respective RII values of the impacts

C37 - Unrealistic time schedule and specifications in contract

relationship
contractual

C38 - Mistakes and discrepancies in contract vary between groups.

C39 - Lack of motivation for contractor to finish early
C40 - Lack of communication between parties
The most common impacts on delay noted by respondents
C41 - Disputes and negotiations between parties were “time overrun” and “costs overrun”. In fact, their
C42 - Unforeseen site conditions observed RII values are not very different, which may indicate
External

that both impacts are related, given that time overrun often
causes

C43 - Problems with neighbors

C44 - Unavailability of utilities in site leads to an increase in the cost of the construction project. The
C45 - Weather conditions impact of “disputes” between groups involved in the
C46 - Changes in government regulations construction project is the third most frequent, as is indicated
Authority
C47 - Delay in obtaining permits from authorities by the value of its RII. This comes as no surprise since
conflicts and disputes between contractors and consultants,
TABLE II. IIMPACTS OF DELAY
contractors and developers or consultants and contractors are
Impacts of delay common [13], [18]. Time and cost overruns, disputes and
I1 - Time overrun conflicts also often arise between groups in the process of
I2 - Cost overrun responsibility assignment. These results are identical to the
I3 - Disputes results by Sambasivan and Soon [13].
I4 - Arbitration
I5 - Litigation The gap in RII values between the first three (very
I6 - Total abandonment frequent) and last three (less frequent) impacts (Table VI) is
worthy of note. According to respondents, the use of
The most important cause (Table III) indicated by arbitration, legal dispute and total abandonment of the project
respondents was “slow decision making by the developer”, occurs less frequently than time and cost overruns and disputes
which is justifiable as timing of decision-making is critical in between the different entities.
construction projects. The following 4 main causes were:
“change orders”, “unrealistic time schedule and specifications
in contract”, “financial constraints on the contractor” and “type
 TABLE III. RANKING OF CAUSES OF DELAY TABLE IV. RANKING OF CAUSE OF DELAY CATEGORIES
Category Causes of delay RII Rank Respondents
C1 - Delay in progress payments by developer 0.770 6

Contractor

Consultant
C2 - Slow decision making by developer 0.849 1

Developer
Global
C3 - Developer interference 0.736 8
Developer

C4 - Delay in handing over the site to Category

0.574 38
contractor by developer
C5 - Increase in scope of work 0.732 9 Rank Rank Rank RII Rank
C6 - Change orders 0.845 2 Developer 1 2 1 0.740 1
C7 - Bureaucracy in developer’s organization 0.670 22 Contract and contractual relationship 2 1 2 0.717 2
C8 - Delays and changes of subcontractors 0.655 26 Contractor 6 3 3 0.657 3
C9 - Inadequate construction methods 0.626 30 Design 3 6 5 0.649 4
C10 - Improper planning and scheduling 0.755 7 Material 8 4 4 0.635 5
C11 - Mistakes during construction 0.645 28 Authority 5 7 6 0.628 6
Contractor

C12 - Inadequate contractor experience 0.677 18 Consultant 4 9 9 0.617 7

C13 - Site accidents 0.474 47 Labor and equipment 9 5 7 0.612 8
C14 - Poor site management and supervision Labor and equipment 9 5 7 0.612 8
0.577 37
by contractor
C15 - Financial constraints on part of TABLE V. SPEARMAN'S RANK OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
0.843 4
contractor
C16 - Delay in site mobilization by contractor 0.657 25 Entity Contractor Consultant Developer
C17 - Inflexibility of consultant 0.668 23 Contractor 1
C18 - Delay in approval of drawings 0.674 20 Consultant 0.727 1
Consultant

C19 - Delay in quality control 0.621 32 Developer 0.648 0.831 1

C20 - Lack of control over subcontractor 0.521 44
C21 - Waiting time for approval of tests and TABLE VI. RANKING OF IMPACTS OF DELAY
0.598 33
inspections
C22 - Inadequate material quality 0.585 36 Impacts of delay RII Rank
Time overrun 0.804 1
C23 - Damaged materials 0.511 45
Cost overrun 0.785 2
C24 - Shortage in materials 0.677 19
Disputes 0.700 3
Material

C25 - Delay in material delivery 0.711 14

Arbitration 0.506 4
C26 - Changes in material specifications
0.717 13 Litigation 0.485 5
during construction
C27 - Delay in materials procurement 0.721 12 Total abandonment 0.415 6
C28 - Change in material prices 0.523 43
C29 - Lack of qualified Labor 0.626 30
exceeds the minimum threshold of 1, and all factor loadings are
equipment
Labor and

C30 - Low Labor productivity 0.651 27

C31 - Equipment availability and failure 0.574 38 superior to 0.5 and the corresponding cross-loadings are
C32 - Inadequate equipment 0.596 34
inferior to 0.5, as recommended by Field [19]. The factor
C33 - Mistakes and discrepancies in drawings 0.728 10
analysis was performed using the statistical package for social
Design C34 - High complexity of drawings 0.587 35 sciences (SPSS). The result of KMO and Bartlett’s test of
C35 - Delay in producing design documents 0.632 29 sphericity value was 0.826 (higher than 0.5, the minimum
C36 - Bidding and contract award process 0.828 5 value recommended by Kaiser [20]). Furthermore, to validate
Contract and contractual

C37 - Unrealistic time schedule and

0.845 3
that extracted factors measure what they are intended to, the
specifications in contract Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated and all
relationship

C38 - Mistakes and discrepancies in contract 0.666 24 correlation coefficients between causes present values higher
C39 - Lack of motivation for contractor to
finish early
0.560 41 than 0.3, so it can be assumed that the factors extracted contain
C40 - Lack of communication between parties 0.696 16 related causes [19]. Finally, all Cronbach’s alpha values are
C41 - Disputes and negotiations between greater than 0.67 (Table VII), which ensure the consistency of
0.711 14 latent causes [21], [22]. Therefore, all results of the factor
parties
C42 - Unforeseen site conditions 0.687 17 analysis can be accepted and have statistical meaning.
External
causes

C43 - Problems with neighbors 0.566 40

C44 - Unavailability of utilities in site
C45 - Weather conditions
C46 - Changes in government regulations
Authority C47 - Delay in obtaining permits from
authorities
B. Latent causes
As used before in similar studies [8], factor analysis was
useful to find correlations between causes of delay and 6
factors (latent causes) that were extracted aggregating 26
(observed) causes of delay, explaining nearly 70% of total
variance (Table VII). The eigenvalue of the extracted factors
0.511 45 Factor I (latent cause “poor contractor performance”)
0.672 21 comprises 6 causes of delays directly associated to inefficient
0.530 42 site management by the contractor. In fact, he has a decisive
role in construction projects and his performance is essential to
0.726 11
avoid delays. The commitment of the contractor gathers all
these causes of delay into one latent cause, which it is easy to
accept.
Factor II (latent cause “inefficient site management”)
groups 6 causes of delays connected with materials, labor and
equipment; unavailability of equipment or inadequate
equipment can decrease labor productivity and it is a sign of
improper planning and poor site management, which can also
be considered a reason for construction delays.
 Factor III (latent cause “poor consultant performance”) TABLE VII. FACTOR ANALYSIS
groups 4 causes of delay, all of them linked to poor control by Factor
the consultant; consultants play a relevant role in construction Factors extracted (latent causes)
loading
projects and rigidity/inflexibility on their part can origin delays Factor I - Poor contractor performance (Cα =0.867)
in projects progress. C8 - Delays and changes of subcontractors 0.663
C9 - Inadequate construction methods 0.646
Factor IV (latent cause “lack of commitment”) links 3 C10 - Improper planning and scheduling 0.829
causes of delay apparently unrelated, their correlation depend C11 - Mistakes during construction 0.742
on mostly on the contractor’s commitment; lack of C12 - Inadequate contractor experience 0.652
commitment means that contractor is negligent selecting and C14 - Poor site management and supervision by contractor 0.690
Factor II – Inefficient site management (Cα =0.894)
controlling the subcontractors, which can lead to a reduction in
C23 - Damaged materials 0.508
quality of materials and change their prices. C24 - Shortages in materials 0.733
Factor V (latent cause “poor developer performance”) C25 - Delay in materials delivery 0.727
C30 - Low labor productivity 0.648
groups 3 causes of delays associated to formality required by
C31 - Equipment unavailability and failure 0.711
the developer and by the legislation. Unnecessary paper work C32 - Inadequate equipment 0.777
and ineffective communication chains can lead to potential Factor III – Poor consultant performance (Cα =0.873)
bureaucracy. Excessive bureaucracy in the developer’s C17 - Inflexibility of consultant 0.707
organization can cause delays in the progress of works in many C18 - Delay in approval of drawings 0.815
ways and legislation changes (external and unpredictable) are C19 - Delay in quality control 0.794
too a major issue in delays in construction projects. C21 - Waiting time for approval of tests and inspections 0.751
Factor IV – Lack of commitment (Cα =0.752)
Factor VI (latent cause “sub-standard contracts) aggregates C20 - Lack of control over subcontractor 0.803
4 causes of delays associated with the contract and contractual C22 - Inadequate material quality 0.597
relationships. Moreover, lack of communication among all C28 - Change in material price 0.671
entities involved in the construction project also may results in Factor V – Poor developer performance (Cα =0.670)
C7 - Bureaucracy in developer’s organization 0.794
disputes and negotiations.
C35 - Delay in producing design documents 0.588
Finally, from the 6 latent causes found in this work, only 3 C46 - Changes in government regulations 0.702
can be found in the work of Doloi et al. [8], (inefficient site Factor VI - Sub-standard contracts (Cα =0.737)
C37 - Unrealistic time schedule and specifications in contract 0.723
management, lack of commitment and sub-standard contracts),
C39 - Lack of motivation for contractor to finish early 0.595
reflecting the differences between the contexts. C40 - Lack of communication between parties 0.648
C41 - Disputes and negotiations between parties 0.771
C. Correlation between causes and impacts
The final phase involved identifying the relationship TABLE VIII. PEARSON CORRELATION BETWEEN LATENT CAUSES AND
IMPACTS OF DELAYS
between causes and effects. To do so we calculated the Pearson
correlation coefficients between the eight latent causes (factors Impacts
extracted from the factor analysis) and the six previously Total
identified impacts (Table VIII). Time
overrun
Cost
overrun
Dispute
Arbitra-
tion
Litigation abandon-
ment
Latent causes
Several correlations were found between latent causes and Poor contractor
impacts. Positive correlation means an increase in the -0.091 -0.173 -0.014 -0.048 0.015 0.033
performance
occurrence of an observed cause of a certain latent cause will Inefficient site
-0.093 0.112 -0.014 0.099 -0.039 0.013
increase the frequency of the corresponding impact while management
negative correlation means the opposite – an increase in the Poor consultant
-.208* -0.022 -0.080 0.146 0.094 0.052
performance
latent cause occurrence will reduce the frequency of the effect.
Lack of
0.353** 0.163 0.092 0.209* 0.280** 0.288**
Latent cause VI, sub-standard contracts, is positively commitment
correlated with all impacts, although without statistical Poor developer
-0.180 -0.002 -0.071 0.087 0.096 0.005
performance
significance with arbitration, litigation and total abandonment. Sub-standard
On the other hand in the case of latent causes I, II and V, poor 0.233* 0.231* 0.325** 0.165 0.194 0.085
contracts
contractor performance, inefficient site management and Poor ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
developer performance, the correlations with impacts are very * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
small and have no statistical significance. However, while
these causes that originated these latent causes have no direct
considered more important, time overruns tend to happen less
relationship with the impacts it does not mean that they have
frequently. Sambasivan and Soon [13] also found a negative
no relationship whatsoever.
correlation coefficient between causes related to consultant and
It is also important to analyze the negative correlation time overrun, although without statistical significance.
coefficients to ensure they make sense and to verify the quality
Finally, latent cause IV, lack of commitment, is positively
of results. The negative coefficient that correlates causes
correlated with all impacts, although without statistical
related to “poor consultant performance” with time overrun
significance with cost overrun and dispute.
means that, when the impacts driven by these causes are
 V. CONCLUSIONS
Regardless of the type and location, delays in construction
projects have always been an important issue and in recent
decades several studies have investigated the causes and
impacts of delays. The present investigation has identified the
main causes and impacts of delays in the Portuguese
construction industry, and the links between them explained.
The differences in perception between the groups involved in
construction projects were also assessed. A survey including 47
causes and six impacts, which was based on the literature
review and properly validated by Portuguese construction
experts, was conducted. Its main findings were:
• The Relative Importance Index revealed that the main
causes of delay were slow decision making, changes to
orders, unrealistic timescales and poor contract
specification, financial constraints on the contractor and
the type of bidding and contract award process, while
the main impacts are time and cost overruns and
disputes;
• Consultants and developers have similar opinions and
both disagree with the contractor on certain matters;
• Developer-related causes, contract and contractual
relationship related causes and contractor-related causes
are the most important categories of delay causes;
• Factor analysis revealed eight six-level causes (latent
causes) that lead to 26 of the original observed causes,
namely: poor contractor performance, inefficient site
management, poor consultant performance, lack of
commitment, poor developer performance and sub-
standard contracts;
• Finally, concerning latent causes, the Pearson
correlation coefficients show that lack of commitment
and sub-standard contracts are positively correlated with
all impacts, while poor consultant performance is
negatively correlated with time overrun.
As a managerial implication, one may say that in order to
mitigate the impacts of delays to their projects, construction
companies, and Portuguese companies in particular, should
endeavour to prevent the causes of those delays by paying
more attention to the root causes of the lack of communication
and commitment.
This investigation seeks to offer a contribution to the
development and improvement of the scientific community’s
knowledge of construction industry project management.
However, we acknowledge some limitations, notably the small
sample of 139 respondents. While this examination concerns a
Portuguese reality, the results are, to some extent, comparable
with those of similar published research.
In terms of further development, it would be of interest to
conduct another survey with a view to achieving a higher
number of responses, so that the quality of the statistical tests
can be improved. It would also be interesting to replicate this
study in other economic and cultural contexts. Finally, another
future development could be finding out the root causes of the
most important causes of delays in construction projects to
mitigate their impacts.
REFERENCES
[1] S. A. Assaf and S. Al-Hejji, “Causes of delay in large construction
projects,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 349–357, 2006.
[2] P. D. Rwelamila and K. A. Hall, “Total systems intervention: an
integrated approach to time, cost and quality management,” Constr.
Manag. Econ., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 235–241, 1995.
[3] D. W. Chan and M. M. Kumaraswamy, “A comparative study of causes
of time overruns in Hong Kong construction projects,” International
Journal of Project Management, vol. 15, no. 1. pp. 55–63, 1997.
[4] S. Alkass, M. Mazerolle, and F. Harris, “Construction delay analysis
techniques,” Constr. Manag. Econ., vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 375–394, 1996.
[5] N. Mansfield, O. Ugwu, and T. Doran, “Causes of delay and cost
overruns in Nigerian construction projects,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 12,
no. 4, pp. 254–260, Nov. 1994.
[6] S. O. Ogunlana, K. Promkuntong, and V. Jearkjirm, “Construction
delays in a fast-growing economy: Comparing Thailand with other
economies,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 37–45, Feb. 1996.
[7] M. Odeh and H. T. Battaineh, “Causes of construction delay: Traditional
contracts,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 67–73, 2001.
[8] H. Doloi, A. Sawhney, K. C. Iyer, and S. Rentala, “Analysing factors
affecting delays in Indian construction projects,” Int. J. Proj. Manag.,
vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 479–489, 2012.
[9] M. Gündüz, Y. Nielsen, and M. Özdemir, “Quantification of Delay
Factors Using the Relative Importance Index Method for Construction
Projects in Turkey,” J. Manag. Eng., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 133–139, 2013.
[10] M. H. Fallahnejad, “Delay causes in Iran gas pipeline projects,” Int. J.
Proj. Manag., 2013.
[11] A. A. Aibinu and G. O. Jagboro, “The effects of construction delays on
project delivery in Nigerian construction industry,” Int. J. Proj. Manag.,
2002.
[12] M. R. Manavazhi and D. K. Adhikari, “Material and equipment
procurement delays in highway projects in Nepal,” Int. J. Proj. Manag.,
2002.
[13] M. Sambasivan and Y. W. Soon, “Causes and effects of delays in
Malaysian construction industry,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 25, no. 5, pp.
517–526, 2007.
[14] Y. Frimpong, J. Oluwoye, and L. Crawford, “Causes of delay and cost
overruns in construction of groundwater projects in a developing
countries; Ghana as a case study,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 21, no. 5, pp.
321–326, 2003.
[15] F. J. Fowler, Survey Research Methods, 4th ed. London: Sage
Publications, 2009.
[16] C. Forza, “Survey research in operations management: a process-based
perspective,” Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 152–194,
2002.
[17] U. Sekaran and R. Bougie, Research Methods for Business: A Skill
Building Approach, 6th ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
[18] T. M. Mezher and W. Tawil, “Causes of delays in the construction
industry in Lebanon,” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp.
252–260, 1998.
[19] A. Field, Discovering Statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics, 4th ed.
London: Sage Publications, 2013.
[20] H. F. Kaiser, “An index of factorial simplicity,” Psychometrika, vol. 39,
no. 1, pp. 31–36, 1974.
[21] H. Doloi, “Analysing the novated design and construct contract from the
client’s, design team's and contractor's perspectives,” Construction
Management and Economics, vol. 26, no. 11. pp. 1181–1196, 2008.
[22] J. C. Nunnally, Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1978.