Time and Cost Overrun in Construction PR PDF

Time and Cost Overrun in Construction Projects in
Egypt
Dr Abdussalam Shibnai
Lecturer Coventry university, UK
Karim Salah
MSC student Coventry University, UK
Abstract
Construction industry is consider one of the major and valuable industries for economic development and the growth in
Egypt. It is very popular that there is time and cost overrun in most of construction projects in Egypt. The previous
literatures studies were divided into two main group which are: factors causing time overrun (delay) in construction project
and factors causing cost overrun (increasing of the cost).
The aim of this paper is to identify and investigate the factors causing time and cost overrun in construction project in Egypt.
The objectives of the paper were achieved through quantitative approach where a valid questionnaire was distributed online
to owner, consultant, and contractors and project management companies. Sixty three responses were received from owners,
consultants, project managers and office engineers within the Egyptian construction industry. The collected data in this
research were analysed using: importance of index, descriptive statistics and correlation coefficient.
The results from the survey showed that the most five (5) factors causing time delay in construction projects from
perspective of importance were: (1) “low productivity of labours”, (2) “poor communication and coordination between
parties”, (3) “different ways of bribes”, (4) “financing delay of the project”, (5) “change orders during work” and “unskilled
labours”.
The result also indicates that the most five (5) factors causing cost overrun were: (1) “additional works by the owner”, (2)
“inaccurate review of the plans and contract document”, (3) “poor feasibility planning and cost control during work” , (4)
“resources constrains such as (financial budget, lack of reserved resources for the contractors), (5) “fluctuation of materials
prices”.
The owners, contractors and consultants were advised to be more responsible about their work and their responsibility to
prevent any delay or cost increasing which could be achieved by encouraging the labours by giving rewards to increase their
productivity, good management, improve the communication and coordination among them.
Key words: Egypt, construction management, importance of index, descriptive statistics and correlation coefficient.
Construction industry is playing a critical role in developing countries. Construction industry is consider as engine of growth
of the economy of the country and it can be measured by the physical development of construction projects. Construction
sector is one of the most dynamic sectors of Egyptian economy and one of the economy fastest growing sectors, it has
been growing rapidly since 1980s by an estimated average of 20 to 22 percent annually and grew strongly in 2006/2007
and become one of the major factor that driving growth. This growth is fuelled by the increasing demand for housing and
large infrastructure project. The Greater Cairo Wastewater project whish considered one of the largest sewerage
developments in the world and the US$88.5 billion South Valley Development project are one of these projects that fuelled
the economic growth in Egypt .Construction sector accounts for 7 percent of national GDP. Due to the political and social
turbulence in Egypt between 2011 and 2013 the construction industry’s output rose by only 2.9 percent in 2011-2012 and
4.9 percent in 2012-2013 according to the Central Bank of Egypt.
The main aim of this paper is to determine and investigate and asses the factors that cause cost and time overrun in
construction projects in Egypt.
1. Introduction
Construction is very important and complex industry sector that plays an important role in Egypt economy.
Construction work build our roads, houses and repair and maintain our
nation’s infrastructure and can involve building of new structures. There
is three main target of any construction projects all over the world and
they are cost, time and quality. The construction management has been
identified as the overall planning of a project by identifying the suitable
resources to finish the project on time, at budge and at required quality.
The three main target of any construction projects are linked together as
shown in figure 1 “Scope triangle”. Any
successful project management can be achieved by accomplish the

project deliverables and objectives within the specified time, quality, Figure 1 Scope Triangle
constraints and within the planned budget by bringing together the tasks
and resources necessary to that. Construction projects face time overrun and cost overrun in various and many countries
and especially development country such as Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
2. Time overruns
“Time overrun is defined as the extension of time beyond planned completion date specified in contract or beyond the
date that parties agreed upon for delivery of project” (T.Subramani et al Int. 2014). Also defined as “the extension of
time beyond planned completion dates traceable to the contractors” (T.Subramani et al Int. 2014). 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”.
(Elinwa and Joshua 2001) “Time overrun is defined as the time lapse between the agreed estimation or completion date
and the actual date of completion”. (Bramble and Callahan 1987) “Describe time overrun as the time during which
some part of construction project is completed beyond the project completion date or nor performed as planned due to
an unanticipated circumstance”. “(Ameh and Osegbo 2011). Al Gahtani Monan (2007) defined project delays because
the project completion date to be increased” (Ubani et al. 2015).
3. Cost overruns
According to (Zhu et al 2004) “cost overrun is defined as excess of actual cost over budget”. Cost overrun is also
sometimes called “cost escalation,” “cost increase,” or “budget overrun.” (Al-Najjar 2008). (Choudhry 2004) “Defined
cost overrun as the difference between the original cost estimate of project and actual construction cost on completion
of works of a commercial sector constriction project” (Ubani et al. 2015).
Cost overrun is defined as an instance in which the provision of contracted goods or services are claimed to require
more financial resources than was originally agreed between a project sponsor and a contractor (NEGA 2008).
(Wideman 2002) defined cost overrun as the amount by which actual costs exceed the baseline or approved costs
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 − 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴

Cost overrun =
𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑙 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
4. There are two type of causes were studied for delay in construction projects:
External causes
Internal causes
Delays which caused by internal causes are arise from four parties involved in the project. These parties are the owner,
designers, contractors, and consultants. Any other delays which not related or happened because of these four parties are
based on external causes such materials suppliers or the weather (Alaghbari et al. 2007).
Several studies have been conducted about delays in construction projects for years in the past, many researches advanced
and modified various factors and groups that result for causing delays into several groups some researchers categorised the
delay up to eleven (11) categories such as in (Muiang et al. 2015) and other researches categorised the delay up to eight (8)
categories such as in (BIN MOHAMAD 2010), (W.M. Chan and M. Kumaraswamy 2002), (Assaf and Al-Hejji 2006) and
(Alaghbari et al. 2007) while other researches such as (Muhwezi et al. 2014), categorised the delay up to four (4)
categories. The four categories are as following:
Contractor’s responsibility of the delay:
Several numbers of studies have been carried out to identify the responsibility and delay factors that related to the contractor.
(Aibinu and Odeyinka 2006) identified several factors as main contributors to contractor’s responsibility for the delay, these
delays are financial problems, equipment fault, planning and scheduling problems, shortage in equipment and materials,
slow mobilization, maintenance problems and shortage of labours. (Chan and Kumaraswamy 1997), identified that the
factors causing delay are poor site management and supervision, insufficient project planning and scheduling. There are
other factors from other researches that delay the project and related to the contractor’s responsibility are construction
mistakes and defective work, poor skills and experience of labours, low productivity of labours, lack of coordination with
other parties, unskilled subcontractors.
5. Consultant’s responsibility of the delay:
There are several factors done by several studies that related to the consultant and delay the projects. (Aibinu and
Odeyinka 2006) identified that insufficient drawings, inadequate site supervision and delay in issuance of instruction.
(Chan and Kumaraswamy 1997), identified delay in design information, lack of designs team experience and mistakes
and contradiction in design documents. (Assaf and Al-Hejji 2006), specified delays that related to the consultant are
delay in testing and inspection, slowness in approving major changes in the scope of work by other parties, poor
communication and coordination with other parties such as (design engineer and contractors), lack of experience.
6. Owner’s responsibility of the delay:
There are various studies identify the factors that related to the owner to cause delays.
(Aibinu and Odeyinka 2006) specified that these factors are owner’s cash flow problems, variation orders and slowness and
delay in decision making. (Chan and Kumaraswamy 1997), specified that factors causing delay and related to the owner are
unrealistic duration of the contract, low speed of decision making and owner initiated variations. (Assaf and Al-Hejji 2006)
identified the factors as delay in payment for the work, delay to deliver the site to the contractor, changing and modify orders
during work, delay in revising and approving design documents, bad communication and coordination between the client
and the other parties, slowness in decision making, suspension of the work and conflicts between joint-ownership of the
project.
7. External Factors:
Many studies conducted that external factors is one of the categories that affect time delays in construction projects. (Aibinu
and Odeyinka 2006) found that price inflation, government regulations, slow permit by government, disturbances by the
locals and civilians, weather conditions and act of Gods were critical. (Chan and Kumaraswamy 1997) identified the factors
unforeseen ground condition and long time to approval of the drawings as critical factors. (Assaf and Al-Hejji 2006)
identified the factors as effect of subsurface conditions (e.g. high water table, soil, etc.), late permission from authorities, and
effect of bad weather condition on the construction activities (such as hot weather effect and rain effect), and shortage of
utilities in site (such as telephone, electricity, water, etc.), traffic control and limitation at job site, differing site (ground)
conditions, shortage of materials, delay in final inspection and certificate by third party and changes in government
regulations and laws.
8. Causes of Cost overruns
Previous studies show that there are various reasons for cost overrun in construction project. (Ameh, Soyingbe, and
Odusami, 2010) identified 42 reasons for cost overrun and found that the main major factor causing cost overrun in Nigeria
are inexperienced contractors, price of material, variation of material prices, changes of design, economic stability, high
interest rates charged by banks on loans. (Adnan Enshassi, Al-Najjar, and Kumaraswamy, 2009) mentioned ten (10) out
forty two (42) identified factors resulting in cost overrun in Gaza construction projects, these factors are increase of materials
prices due to border closures, slowness in construction supply of raw materials and equipment by contractor, changing in the
prices of building materials, unsettlement of local currency in relation to dollar value, monopoly of the project materials by
some suppliers, design changes, and insufficient quantity take off.
Country where survey was conducted. Oman Saudi Arabia Palestine Kuwait UAE Jordan Egypt Iran Turkey
(Gaza
Strip)
Factors causing time and cost overruns of (Alnuaimi (Al‐Kharashi and (Al-Naijar (Sweis et (Zaneldin (Sweis (Aziz (Pourrostam (Kazaz et al.
construction projects and Al Skitmore 2009) 2008) al. 2008) 2006) 2013) 2013) and Ismail 2012)
Mohsin 2012)
2013)
External Factors
site conditions (Location, unforeseen site * * *

condition)
Work accidents * *
Government regulation * * * * *
Weather condition * * *
Price inflation * *
Material factor
Material Shortage * * * *
Escalation of material prices * * * * *
Poor material management * *

Country where survey was conducted. /Factors Oman Saudi Arabia Palestine Kuwait UAE Jordan Egypt Iran Turkey
causing delay of projects (Gaza
Strip)
Mohsin 2012)
2013)
Material factor
Low productivity of materials * *
Poor quality of materials * *
Delay of material delivery * * * *
Owner factors
Financial problems (delay payment, etc.) * * * * * * * *
Bureaucracy * * *
Suspension of work * * * * *
Interference of the owner * * *
(Gaza
Strip)
Mohsin 2012)
2013)
Owner Factors
Change/additional works by the owner * * * * * * *
Poor communication and coordination * * * *
Labours and equipment factors
Low productivity of the labours * *
Unskilled labours * * *
Shortage of skilled labours * * * *
Shortage of equipment * * * * *
Equipment breakdown/failure * * * *
(Gaza
Strip)
Mohsin 2012)
2013)
Labour and Equipment Factors
Lack of maintenance for the equipment *
Contractor factors
Contractor’s financial problems * * * * * * *
Lack of contractor experience * * * * * *
Poor distribution of labours *
Poor site management * * * *
Delay/Mistakes because of subcontractors * * * *
(Gaza
Strip)
Mohsin 2012)
2013)
Contractor Factors
Poor communications and coordination * * * * *
Lack of project staff and qualified staff * *
Consultant factors
Consultant lack of experience * * * * * *
Lack of experience of consultant team * *
Poor communication and coordination * * * *
Delay in giving instructions *
(Gaza
Strip)
Mohsin 2012)
2013)
Consultant Factor
Poor inspections * *
Delay in approving major changes in work scope * * *

by consultant
Delay in performing/ approving of tests and * * *

inspections
Design and documentation related factors
Incomplete drawings * * *
Unclear specifications * * *
Delay in design work * * *
(Gaza
Strip)
Mohsin 2012)
2013)
Design and documentation related factors
Change of design * * * *
Inexperienced designer * *
Design mistakes * *
Professional Management factors
Poor construction planning * * *
Slowness in decision making among project * * *

team
Low managerial skills for all parties * *
9. Table 2.1 Comparison between Egypt and different countrie

10. Time and Cost overruns in Egypt
Time and cost overruns in construction project in Egypt is one of the most important and common problems in civil
engineer in Egypt. Many researches and studies was conducted in this field in Egypt. The research was done by (Aziz
2013) shows that there are ninety-nine (99) factors affecting time delay in construction project in Egypt. Some of these
factors are (1) inexperienced consultant in construction projects; (2) Conflicts between parties of the project (consultant
and design engineer and contractor), (3) Approval delay of major changes in scope of work by consultant; (4) Delay in
performing inspection and testing; (5) Site investigation is not accurate; (6) Inadequate project management
assistance; (7) Delay in reviewing and approving design documents; (8) Bad communication and coordination
between owner and contractor; (9) Repeatedly change of subcontractors; (10) Inadequate contractor experience; (11)
Unsuitable construction methods; (12) Incompetent project team; (13) Ineffective project planning and scheduling;
(14) Obsolete technology; (15) Bad communication and coordination between owner and consultant; (16) Bad site
management and supervision; (17) Reconstruct due to errors; (18) Unreliable subcontractors; (19) Inadequate
site investigation; (20) Unsuitable contractor’s policies; (21) Poor financial control on site; (22) Complexity of project
design; (23) Design changes by owner or his agent during construction; (24) Design errors and omissions made by
designers; (25) Insufficient data collection and survey before design; (26) Lack of design team experience in
construction projects; (27) Mistakes and delays in producing design documents; (28) Misunderstanding of owner’s
requirements by design engineer; (29) Poor use of advanced engineering design software; (30) Unclear and
inadequate details in drawings; (31) Project design is not complete; (32) Defective design made by designers;
(33) Equipment allocation problem; (34) Frequent equipment breakdowns; (35) Improper equipment; (36)
Inadequate modern equipment; (37) Low efficiency of equipment; (38) Shortage of equipment; (39) Slow mobilization
of equipment; (40) Accidents during construction; (41) Changes in government regulations and laws; (42) Different
tactics patterns for bribes; (43) Delay in obtaining permits from municipality; (44) Delay in performing final
inspection and certification by third party; (45) Delay in providing services from utilities (water, electricity, etc.);
(46) Global financial cri- sis; (47) Loss of time by traffic control and restriction at job site; (48) Sudden failures
actions; (49) Price changes; (50) Problem with neighbours; (51) Slow site clearance; (53) Unfavourable weather
conditions.
11. According to Aziz (2013) found that the main and highest factor affecting delays in construction projects in Egypt
is financial problem (funding problem) and identified the top ten factors affecting delays according to importance
of index are as following:
Top Ten delays ranked according to importance of index
Rank Delay factor Related category
1 Funding problems Owner
2 Different type of bribes External
3 Shortage of equipment Equipment
4 Ineffective project planning and scheduling Contractor
5 Poor site management and supervision Contractor
6 Poor financial control on site Contractor
7 Rework due to errors Contractor
8 Selecting inappropriate contractors Owner

9 Sudden failures actions External
10 Inadequate planning Owner
12. Table 2.2 Top ten delays ranked according to importance of index (Aziz 2013)
According to (Marzouk and El-Rasas 2014) the top ten delays according to importance of index are ass following:
Top Ten delays ranked according to importance of index
Rank Delay factor Related category
1 Funding problems of completed work Owner
2 Changes of scope of work during construction Owner
3 Effects of subsurface conditions Project related
4 Low labour’s productivity Labour and equipment
5 Ineffective planning and scheduling of project Contractor
6 Project finance problems by contractors Contractor
7 Type of project bidding and award (lowest bidder) Owner
8 Lack of construction materials in market Material
9 Slowness in revising and approving design documents Owner
10 Unqualified workforce Labour and equipment
13. Table 2.3 Top ten delays ranked according to importance of index (Marzouk and El-Rasas 2014)
1.0 Research Method
There are two type of information sources, these types are primary and secondary. The primary source is known as
information gathering where the analyst collect the information through face to face interviews or discussions with members,
questionnaire and also can be gathered through phone interviews, email exchange, trials and meetings. The secondary source
of information is an accessible from optional sources which has been gathered by researchers and not for particular
exploration issues under control.
These sources can be internet materials, published research, media report, articles, exploration papers and diaries. Research
strategy concern that the scientist receive an efficient and suitable approach to solve the research issue. Generally, research
could be divided into two types of methodologies: quantitative and qualitative methods.
1.0.1 Quantitative Method

Quantitative research method can be identified as collecting of information as explanation of phenomena which can be
analysed numerically based in mathematical ways. The results are typically presented using statistics, tables and graphs.
However, quantitative research method require a large scale of units to provides information in breadth and it is consider as a
shallow method to study a concept or a problem in deep details (Burns, 2000). For first phase of assessments, most of
quantitative data collected is secondary data. While in second phase, field questionnaires are done to continue the collection
of secondary data through gathering information using close ended questions in questionnaire format. The aim of the
quantitative research method is to test hypotheses to look at a cause and effect of relationship and make predictions and to
generate general results which can confirm or refute the hypotheses.
1.0.2 Qualitative Method

Qualitative research method is a method that understand the sense that people have conducted from their experiences.
Instead of generating numerical and statistics data supporting hypothesis. Qualitative research method aims for descriptive
narrative of setting or practice by using case studies and participant observation. It is situated activity that locates the
observer in the world. It makes the world visible for the researchers by adopting set of interpretive, material practices and
explanatory which change the world. These practices turn the world into a series of representations consist of interview,
conversations, field notes, recordings, memos and photographs. This mean that qualitative method research objects in their
normal and daily situation trying to explain and understand the phenomena related to what people defined and explained
them as. Qualitative research method is more suitable to provide the studies in more details to understand including the
viewpoints of the research population and its context.
Figure 3.1 .Typology of Qualitative Analysis Techniques (Denzin and Lincoln 2000)
1.1 The Adoptive Research Method

The adoptive research method chosen for this research is mixed method approach regarding the limitation and strength of
each type. This research consists of two styles causality and meaning by looking for more details and the breadth of the
information. Mixing between qualitative method in literature review and quantitative method in data analysis allows equal
status. By mixing the two method allows the flexibility of the research to produce and gather an efficient information.
There are several numbers of approach that can be used to gather the information. Verbal and written types are the main
types that this theses has been based on. Face to face interview was the verbal type while the written type is questionnaire
which is consider one of the most popular method to gather confidential information. The questionnaire has been made and
designed to collect the primary information through collecting the opinions and thoughts of the participants. The role of the
questionnaire is to translate the needed information into simple easy questions that the participants and respondents could
answer (Malhotra and Krosnick, 2007). A questionnaire has been used with a close ended questions to gather data and
information about the factors affecting time and cost overruns in construction projects in Egypt. While face to face
interviews has been used to expand the boundaries of the information and assist the research objectives.
1.2 Design of Questionnaire
This questionnaire is aimed to be forward, direct and simple questions. Therefore, the questionnaire has been divided into a
number of forms with ‘Agree/Disagree’ style to guarantee completion of the survey. All the questions were provided with a
space to allow the participants to add more or any information without any restraints.
The questions were based on the literature review adapting the factors affecting time and cost overruns in construction
project in Egypt. The questionnaire is consist of 76 questions where divided into three sections as follows:
First Section: Personal Information
This sections contain five questions that illustrate personal data of the participant. It provides information on the participant
years of experience, position in the firms, name of the firms, the main role of the firm and optional question for the name of
the participant in order to get accurate and reliable data given by the participant.
Second Section: Factors Affecting Time delay in Construction Projects in Egypt
This section contain fifty five (55) questions that illustrate the factors affecting time delay in construction projects and these
fifty five questions has been divided into eight (8) groups as following:
• First Group: this group consists of nine causes that delay construction projects because of the owner.
• Second Group: this group consists of nine causes that delay the projects because of the contractor.
• Third Group: this group consists of seven causes that delay the projects because of the consultant.
• Fourth Group: this group consists of six causes that delay the projects because of the drawings and designs.
• Fifth Group: this group consists of five causes that delay the projects because of the labours and equipment.
• Sixth Group: this group consists of five causes that delay the projects because of the construction materials.
• Seventh Group: this group consists of six causes that delay the projects because of the project itself.
• Eighth Group: this group consists of seven causes that delay the projects because of external factors.
Third Section: Factors affecting cost overrun in construction projects in Egypt
This section contains twenty (20) questions that show the reasons and factors that lead into increasing of the cost of the
construction projects in Egypt.
Data collection and analysis:
Factors affecting time delay in construction projects

This section is about the factors that affect time delay (overrun) in construction projects. The factors were divided into 8
groups, these groups are as following:
1. Owner related factors.
2. Contractor related factors.
3. Consultants related factors.
4. Design related factors.
5. Labour and Equipment related factors.
6. Material related factors.
7. Project related factors.
8. External factors.
Table 4.3 below shows these factors and overall importance of index from the highest factor to the lowest fact from the point
of view of all the respondents. The highest five (5) and the most important factors that result in time delay in construction
projects from all the respondents is low productivity of the labours with (I.I=77.78%), after that the communication and
coordination between the parties with (I.I=76.51%), then different ways of bribe with (I.I=75.56%), after that come
financing delay of the project with (I.I=75.24%), then changes orders during work with (I.I=72.38%). While the lowest five
(5) factors that result in time delay are unreliable suppliers with (I.I= 56.19%), then poor quality of materials with (I.I=
54.60%), after that come the complicated design of the project with (I.I= 52.38%) and the lowest two factors are unsuitable
weather condition and low productivity or materials inside the country with same (I.I=50.79%).
Related Strongly Strongly
ID Time Factor Disagree Neutral Agree Total RII
Category disagree agree
Labour and
5.5 Low productivity of labours 2 5 11 25 20 63 77.78%
Equipment
1.9 Communication and coordination problems Owner 0 7 17 19 20 63 76.51%
8.7 Different ways of bribes External Factors 2 11 10 16 24 63 75.56%
1.5 Financing delay of the project Owner 3 7 11 23 19 63 75.24%
1.6 Change orders during work Owner 1 2 28 21 11 63 72.38%
Labour and
5.6 Unskilled labours 3 9 12 24 15 63 72.38%
Equipment
4.2 Changes of design by owner or his agent during work Design 1 3 25 25 9 63 72.06%
Labour and
5.2 repeated crashes of equipment 1 11 11 30 10 63 71.75%
Equipment
2.6 Delay in work due to subcontractors Contractor 1 8 19 24 11 63 71.43%
2.9 Poor communication and coordination Contractor 2 10 19 14 18 63 71.43%
2.3 Poor site management and supervision Contractor 1 9 22 16 15 63 71.11%
8.2 Inappropriate government policy External Factors 4 9 17 17 16 63 70.16%
Labour and
5.4 Shortage of Labours 4 5 25 16 13 63 69.21%
Equipment
6.4 Inflation of materials price Materials 5 12 12 17 17 63 69.21%
1.8 Intervention of the owner Owner 1 6 27 22 7 63 68.89%
8.6 Inflation of materials price External Factors 3 14 14 16 16 63 68.89%
1.1 Slowness in decision making Owner 1 5 28 24 5 63 68.57%
2.7 Delay in material samples and drawings preparation Contractor 2 11 22 14 14 63 68.57%
4.3 Mistakes and delay in producing design documents Design 1 11 21 20 10 63 68.57%
2.2 Unqualified project team Contractor 2 11 21 18 11 63 67.94%
3.6 Poor communication and coordination Consultant 2 15 15 18 13 63 67.94%
3.5 delay in approval of major changes in work scope Consultant 0 10 26 20 7 63 67.62%

8.4 Force majeure such as (war, revolution, earthquakes, etc.) External Factors 9 13 9 9 23 63 67.62%
4.4 Incomplete project design Design 2 12 21 18 10 63 66.98%
4.5 Unclear and Insufficient details and drawing Design 2 12 22 16 11 63 66.98%
2.1 Inexperienced Contractor Contractor 5 7 22 20 9 63 66.67%
3.1 Delay of design and material samples approval Consultant 2 11 24 17 9 63 66.35%
7.3 slow of flow information among members of the project team Project 4 13 15 21 10 63 66.35%
1.7 Unrealistic contract duration Owner 6 10 19 16 12 63 65.71%
7.5 Short duration of original contract Project 4 12 20 16 11 63 65.71%
1.3 Delay in revising and approving design documentation Owner 5 11 19 19 9 63 65.08%
3.2 Unclear and Insufficient details and drawing Consultant 2 15 22 13 11 63 65.08%
2.5 Delay in site mobilization Contractor 3 12 26 13 9 63 64.13%
6.2 Delay in delivery of materials Materials 3 14 20 20 6 63 63.81%

Labour and
5.1 Shortage of equipment 2 12 26 19 4 63 63.49%
Equipment
8.5 Changes in the law and government regulations External Factors 6 15 17 12 13 63 63.49%
2.8 Poor site financial management Contractor 5 13 20 17 8 63 63.17%

Labour and
5.3 Slow mobilization of the equipment 2 12 25 23 1 63 62.86%
Equipment
3.3 Inexperienced Consultant Consultant 5 16 17 17 8 63 62.22%
6.5 Shortage of materials Materials 8 15 15 12 13 63 62.22%
3.4 Conflict between consultant and designer Consultant 6 9 25 19 4 63 61.90%
7.4 Unfavourable contract terms Project 3 17 21 15 7 63 61.90%
2.4 Reconstruction due to mistakes during construction Contractor 4 18 20 11 10 63 61.59%
4.6 Designs errors because of designers Design 5 11 31 9 7 63 60.63%
3.7 Inaccurate site investigation Consultant 4 18 22 11 8 63 60.32%
1.2 Work suspension Owner 4 13 30 11 5 63 60.00%
7.6 Legal disputes between project participants Project 2 23 18 13 7 63 60.00%
1.4 Delay in delivering the site to the contractor Owner 8 17 20 10 8 63 57.78%
7.2 Ineffective delay penalty Project 6 19 20 12 6 63 57.78%

7.1 Complicated project (type of project, size, etc.) Project 8 18 19 13 5 63 56.51%
6.1 Unreliable suppliers Materials 5 18 26 12 2 63 56.19%
6.3 Poor quality of materials Materials 10 19 17 12 5 63 54.60%
4.1 Complicated project design Design 9 22 18 12 2 63 52.38%
8.1 Low productivity of materials inside the country External Factors 17 12 22 7 5 63 50.79%
8.3 Unsuitable weather condition External Factors 19 12 17 9 6 63 50.79%

Table 4.4 Factors affecting time overrun with Importance of index
Project
Owner Contractor Consultant
ID Owner Related Factor Management
R.I.I Rank R.I.I Rank R.I.I Rank R.I.I Rank
Communication and
1.9 coordination problems 84.00% 1 76.00% 2 75.29% 1 70.00% 4
1.5 Financing delay of the project 76.00% 2 80.67% 1 67.06% 4 70.00% 2
Group one: Owner Related Factors

• Owner view
Table 4.4 show that the respondents’ owners ranked “communication and coordination between the owner and other parties”
is number one (1) with (I.I= 84.00%), which indicate and show the high importance of the communication and coordination
between the owner, contractors and consultants in order to finish work on time and prevent any delay. Poor communication
and coordination between the owner and other parties will affect the flow of the information such design, materials
specification between them which will affect the work and therefore the project will delay. Construction projects require
high level of coordination between all professionals and trade persons from design office to construction site until the project
is completed (Hossain 2009).
The second important factors ranked by owners’ respondents are financial delay and with (I.I=76.00%). This shows the
importance of funding the project obviously if the funding is low the payment for the work done will be delayed, materials
delivery will be delayed which will affect the whole project and lead to delay in the project time since any project depends
on the funding from the owner or the partners and also, change orders during work has the same (I.I= 76.00%) as financing
delay which consider very important since that the owner or his agent change orders during
Work will affect the project time and may result in project delay specifically if this change is on the critical path of the
project which will affect the other successor activities. In table 4.4 shows that the owner respondents ranked delay in
revising and approving design documentations with (I.I= 56.00%) as the lowest factor that result in time delay of the project.
• Contractor view
Table 4.4 show that the respondents of the contractors ranked financing delay with (I.I= 80.67%) as first factor that result in
project delay. This slightly different with the owners respondents where financing delay come in second position, and
contractors respondents saw that the financing delay is the most important factor affecting time delay more than
communication and coordination between owner and other parties with (I.I= 76.00%) which is ranked in second place which
is different from the owners respondents that got first rank. This mean that the contractors are more aware that the funding
problem is the most important where
1.6 Change orders during work 76.00% 3 72.00% 3 69.41% 3 76.67% 1
1.2 Work suspension 72.00% 4 56.00% 9 60.00% 6 60.00% 8
1.8 Intervention of the owner 72.00% 5 68.00% 7 70.59% 2 63.33% 7
1.1 Slowness in decision making 70.00% 6 71.33% 5 63.53% 5 66.67% 5
1.7 Unrealistic contract duration 70.00% 7 68.67% 6 56.47% 8 70.00% 3
Delay in delivering the site to the
1.4 60.00% 8 56.67% 8 55.29% 9 66.67% 6
contractor
Delay in revising and
1.3 approving design documentation 56.00% 9 72.00% 4 60.00% 7 60.00% 9
Table 4.5 Owner related factors resulted in time delay
Is lack of the owner in funding the project during work and more important than communication and coordination. Where
the third rank according to contractor respondents is change orders during work with (I.I= 72.00%) which is similar with the
opinion of the owner respondents.
As shown in table 4.4 the contractor respondents classified work suspension with (I.I= 56.00%) as the lowest factor. This
mean that there are low probability that the project will be delayed due to work suspension from the owner.
• Consultant view
According to consultant respondents in table 4.4 that communication and coordination between the owner and other parties
with (I.I= 75.29%) is ranked as first factor affecting time delay which is similarity with the owner respondents. In second
rank is intervention of work by owner with (I.I= 70.59%), where the consultant see that there is high probability of delay in
the project because of intervention of owner in the work. However, consultant respondents are in totally agreement with
owner and contractor respondents that change orders during work with (I.I= 69.41%) is consider as the third important factor
in time delay.
As shown in table 4.4 the consultant respondents ranked delay in “delivering the site to the contractor” as the lowest
important factor with (I.I= 55.29%) that result in time delay in this group. Which mean that the consultant see that there is no
delay from the owner in delivering the site to the contractor and there is no delay due to this factor.
• Project management view
As shown in table 4.4 project management respondents ranked “change orders by the owner” as first important rank with
(I.I= 76.67%), where in second place “financing delay” with (I.I= 70.00%) agreeing with the owner respondents and also,
“unrealistic contract duration” and “communication and coordination problems” with the same (I.I= 70.00%), came after that
as third rank “slowness in decision making” and “delivering site to the contractor” with (I.I= 66.67%) that result in time
delay.
According to the project management respondents the lowest important factor that result in time delay in projects as shown
in table 4.4 is “delaying in revising and approving design documentation” with (I.I= 60.00%) which is agreeing with the
owner respondents.
• Spearman rank correlation
Spearman’s Rank correlation coefficient is used to identify and test the degree of association between two variables.
(Statistics Solutions 2015)
6 ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑑𝑖2
p=1-
(𝑛3 − 𝑛)
Where:
p= spearman’s rank correlation coefficient
di = the difference between the ranks of corresponding value Xi and Yi
n= number of factors
• Spearman rank correlation for group of owner factors
Table 4.5 show spearman rank correlation between the owner, contractor, consultant and project management for group
“owner related factors”. In this group the correlation coefficient between owner and contractor equals to 0.411 with P-value=
0.272. P-value is higher than the level of significant α =0.05, so there is no significant between owner and contractor. The
correlation coefficient between owner and consultant equals to 0.769 with P-value= 0.015 P-value is lower than the level of
significant α =0.05, so the relationship between owner and contractor is significant. The correlation coefficient between
owner and project management equals to 0.569 with P-value= 0.110. P-value is higher than the level of significant α =0.05,
so the relationship between owner and contractor is not significant. The correlation coefficient between contractor and
consultant equals to 0.516 with P-value= 0.115. P-value is higher than the level of significant α =0.05, so the relationship
between owner and contractor is not significant. The correlation coefficient between contractor and project management
equals to 0.567 with P-value= 0.112. P-value is higher than the level of significant α =0.05, so the relationship between
owner and contractor is not significant. The correlation coefficient between contractor and consultant equals to 0.226 with P-
value= 0.559. P-value is higher than the level of significant α =0.05, so the relationship between owner and contractor is not
significant.
Table 4.6 correlation test of owner group between owner, contractor, consultant and project management
Correlation
Correlation Correlation
Coefficient
Coefficient Coefficient
Group P-value P-value Owner and P-value
Owner and Owner and
Project
Contractor Consultant
Management
Owner 0.411 0.272 0.769 0.015 0.569 0.110

Correlation
Coefficient
Group P-value Contractor and P-value Consultant and P-value
Contractor and
Project Project
Consultant
Management Management
Owner 0.516 0.155 0.567 0.112 0.226 0.559
• Correlation is significant at significance level α = 0.05
4.0.1 Group two: Contractor Related Factor

• Owner view
As shown in table 4.6 above the owner respondents ranked “delay in work due to the subcontractors” with importance of
index (I.I= 76.00%) as first factor causing time overrun in this group. This result show that the subcontractors are unreliable
and incompetent, that’s why they are the most important factor in time delay. Also, “poor financial control in the site” (I.I=
76.00%) was ranked as first factor result in time delay. This mean that financial control in the site is very weak or there is no
control which may lead in delay in labours payment, delay in getting the suitable material which result in time delay of the
project. The owner respondents ranked “Poor communication and coordination” (I.I= 74.00%) as third factor result in time
overrun. In the same rank was “poor site management and supervision” (I.I= 74.00%). Poor management and supervision of
the site will result in time delay due to waste of material by the labours, poor location of material storage, poor location of
equipment or poor assignment of labours on site.
As shown in table 4.6 the owner respondents ranked “delay in material samples and drawings preparation” (I.I= 66.00%) as
one of the least two factors causing time delay in projects. According to the owner respondents as shown in table 4.6 the
least factor result in time delay was “inexperienced contractor” with importance of index (I.I= 62.00%). This result show
Owner Contractor Consultant Project Management

ID Contractor Related Factor
Delay in work due to
2.6 76.00% 1 72.00% 1 68.24% 6 70.00% 4
subcontractors
Poor financial control in the
2.8 76.00% 1 58.67% 9 64.71% 8 60.00% 7
site
Poor communication and
2.9 74.00% 3 70.00% 2 71.76% 2 73.33% 1
coordination
Poor site management and
2.3 74.00% 3 68.67% 3 72.94% 1 73.33% 1
supervision
2.5 Delay in site mobilization 72.00% 5 62.00% 8 65.88% 7 56.67% 8
Reconstruction due to mistakes

2.4 70.00% 6 63.33% 7 55.29% 9 56.67% 8
during construction
Unqualified contractor project
2.2 68.00% 7 66.00% 5 69.41% 5 73.33% 1
team
Delay in material samples and
2.7 66.00% 8 68.67% 3 70.59% 3 66.67% 6
drawings preparation
2.1 Inexperienced Contractor 62.00% 9 65.33% 6 70.59% 3 70.00% 4

that most of the contractors are experienced in Egypt.
Table 4.7 Contractor related factor result in time delay
• Contractor point of view
The contractor respondents as shown in table 4.6 ranked “delay in work due to the subcontractors” as first factor causing
time delay with importance of index (I.I= 72.00%). This result is in agreement with the owner respondents that the
subcontractors are unreliable and incompetent. In the second rank was “poor communication and coordination” with
importance of index (I.I= 70.00%). This result show that there is huge lack of communication and coordination with the
other parties which will affect the flow of information and work between the parties which will lead in delay of the project.
The contractor respondents ranked “poor site management and supervision” as third factor with importance of index (I.I=
68.67%). This result is in conformity with the owner respondents which show that the poor of site management and
supervision is influencing time delay in construction project.
Table 4.6 shows that the contractor respondents ranked “delay in site mobilization” as one of the least two factors causing
time delay with importance of index (I.I= 62.00%). This result show that site mobilization in Egypt is good and there is no
delay in mobilization. The least factor ranked by the contractor respondents was “poor financial control in the site”
(I.I=58.67%).
• Consultant point of view
As shown in table 4.6 the consultant respondents ranked “Poor site management and supervision” in the first position with
importance of index (I.I= 72.94%) that cause time delay. The second rank was “poor communication and coordination” (I.I=
71.76%) that cause time overrun. This result is in agreement with the contractor respondents but important of index from the
point of view of the consultant is slightly higher than the contractors.
The consultant respondents ranked “inexperienced contractor” with importance of index (I.I= 70.59%) as third factor causing
time delay. This indicates the importance of experienced contractor. Contractor who lack experience in work performance
and executing other projects will not be able to execute the work in good professionalism and will take long time to finish
unlike the experienced one that will finish it in short of time. The consultant respondents ranked “reconstruction due to
mistakes during construction” as the least factor causing time delay with importance of index (I.I= 55.29%). The appropriate
explanation of this result is that the construction is done accurately according to the drawings and the specifications.
• Project management point of view
According to the project management respondent as shown in table 4.6 ranked “unqualified contractor project team” (I.I=
73.33%, “poor communication and coordination” (I.I= 73.33%) and “poor site management and supervision” (I.I= 73.33%)
in the first position of the factors that cause time delay. This result explain that qualified and good project team for the
contractor is very important to help him in the work, which lead to good quality of work, good concentration and less
responsibility and short time for completion. As for “poor communication and coordination” and “poor site management and
coordination” it show how important that this factor in time delay confirmed by the other three respondents (owner,
contractor and consultant) except that the project management respondents they ranked them as first position and with high
value of importance of index than some of the other respondents. In table 4.6 the project management respondents ranked
“delay in mobilization” (I.I= 56.67%) and “reconstruction due to mistakes during construction” (I.I= 56.67%) as the least
factors causing time delay in the project in this group.
“contractor related factors”. In this group the correlation coefficient between owner and contractor equals to 0.148 with P-
value= 0.704. P-value is higher than the level of significant α =0.05, so there is no significant between owner and contractor.
The correlation coefficient between owner and consultant equals to 0.185 with P-value= 0.634 P-value is higher than the
level of significant α =0.05, so the relationship between owner and contractor is not significant. The correlation coefficient
between owner and project management equals to 0.070 with P-value= 0.858. P-value is higher than the level of significant α
=0.05, so the relationship between owner and contractor is not significant. The correlation coefficient between contractor and
value= 0.018. P-value is lower than the level of significant α =0.05, so the relationship between owner and contractor is
significant.
Table 4.8 Correlation coefficient of contractor factors among all 4 parties
Correlation
Coefficient
Owner and Owner and
Project
Management
Contractor 0.148 0.704 0.185 0.634 0.070 0.858
Correlation Coefficient Coefficient
Group Coefficient P-value Contractor and P-value Consultant and P-value
Contractor and Project Project
Consultant Management Management
Contractor 0.650 0.058 0.654 0.056 0.759 0.018
4.0.2 Group three: Consultant Related Factor
• Owner point of view
Table 4.8 shows that the owner respondents ranked “unclear and insufficient details of the drawings” as the first factor
causing time delay with importance of index (I.I= 76.00%). This results shows that if the details of the drawings wasn’t
complete or clear or sufficient, which may result in mistakes during construction which will require rework and this also will
require that the contractor to ask the consultant for new drawing with more details to be able continue the work which may
take some times to finish and give it back to the contractor. All that will lead to time delay in the project. Poor
communication and coordination with importance of index (I.I= 70.00%) was ranked second position in causing time delay
by the respondents of the owner as shown in table 4.8. This show that the high importance of communication and
coordination between the parties in order to finish the project on time since this factor is in conformity with the other two
groups (owner and contractor groups).
The owner respondents ranked “delay of design and material approval” (I.I=68.00%) and “inexperienced consultant” (I.I=
68.00%) as the third factors causing time delay in construction projects. This result show the importance of design and
material approval and the experienced consultant. Delay of design approval will result in suspension of the construction. If
the approval of material was delayed due to lack of the staff or intentionally. If consultant lack experience will not be
professionalism in executing the work and may result in mistake during of the work, this will also result in time delay for the
project.
Table 4.9 Consultant related factors result in time delay
Table 4.8 show that the owner respondent ranked “inaccurate site investigation” with importance of index (I.I= 58.00%) as

ID Consultant Related Factor
Unclear and Insufficient details
3.2 76.00% 1 66.67% 4 54.12% 7 70.00% 2
of the drawing
3.6 Poor communication and coordination 70.00% 2 73.33% 1 61.18% 2 56.67% 6
Delay of design and material
3.1 68.00% 3 72.00% 2 55.29% 5 66.67% 3
samples approval
3.3 Inexperienced Consultant 68.00% 3 63.33% 5 55.29% 5 66.67% 3
delay in approval of major
3.5 64.00% 5 71.33% 3 63.53% 1 66.67% 3
changes in work scope
Conflict between consultant and
3.4 62.00% 6 60.67% 7 60.00% 3 73.33% 1
designer
3.7 Inaccurate site investigation 58.00% 7 62.67% 6 60.00% 3 53.33% 7
the lowest factor in causing time delay. This result explain that the consultants don’t lack site investigation and do it
accurately.
Table 4.8 show that the contractor respondents ranked “poor communication and coordination” with importance of index
(I.I= 73.33%) as first factor causing time delay. While the second factor ranked by the contractor respondents as shown in
table 4.8 was “delay of design and material samples approval” (I.I= 72.00%). This results is in conformity with the owner
respondents in terms of importance but with different order, in case of contractor the value of importance of index is higher.
The contractor respondents ranked “delay in approval of major changes in work scope” with importance of index
(I.I=71.33%) as third factor causing time delay. The appropriate explanation of this result that delaying in giving approval of
major changes in work scope may lead to work suspension which will result in time delay.
As shown in table 4.8 the contractor respondents ranked “conflict between consultant and designer” (I.I= 60.67%) as the
least factor causing time delay. This result show that the relation between the consultant and the designer.
Table 4.8 show that the consultant respondents ranked “delay in approval major changes in work scope” with importance of
index (I.I= 63.53%) as the first factor causing time delay. The consultant respondents ranked “poor communication and
coordination” with importance of index (I.I= 61.18%) as second factor causing time delay. “Inaccurate site investigation”
and “conflict between consultant and designer” were ranked in third position that cause time delay in construction projects.
The respondents of the contractor ranked “unclear and insufficient details of the drawing” as the least factor causing time
delay with importance of index (I.I= 54.12%). This result shows that from the point of view of consultant that there is
enough and clear details in the drawing.
Correlation Correlation Correlation

Coefficient Owner Coefficient Coefficient
Group P-value P-value P-value
and Owner and Owner and
Contractor Consultant Project Management
Consultant 0.633 0.127 0.564 0.187 0.197 0.672

Correlation
Coefficient
Group P-value Contractor and P-value P-value
Contractor and Consultant and
Project
Consultant Project Management
Management
Consultant 0.112 0.810 0.251 0.587 0.371 0.412
Table 4.8 show that project management respondents ranked “conflict between consultant and designer” as the first factor
causing time delay with important of index (I.I= 73.33%). The second factor was “unclear and insufficient detail of the
drawings” with important of index (I.I= 70.00%) that cause time delay. “Delay in approval of major changes in work scope”,
“delay of design and material samples approval” and “inexperienced consultant” were ranked as third factors causing time
delay in construction project.
The project management respondents ranked “inaccurate site investigation” as the least factor causing time delay with
importance of index (I.I= 53.33%). This result is in conformity with the respondents of the owner, but in case of the project
management the value of importance of index is lower than the owner.
Table 4.10 Correlation coefficient for consultant group among owner, contractor, consultant and project management
“consultant related factors”. In this group the correlation coefficient between owner and contractor equals to 0.633 with P-
The correlation coefficient between owner and consultant equals to 0.564 with P-value= 0.187. P-value is higher than the
significant.
4.0.3 Group four: Design Related Factor

In table 4.10 the owner respondents ranked “changes of design by owner or his agent during work” with importance of index
(I.I= 76.00%) as first factor causing time delay. This result explain that the changes in design by owner during work, may
lead to rework in completed work which result in loose of material and if this change was on the critical path will affect the
successor activities which will result in time delay. Also, “mistakes and delay in producing design documents” with
importance of index (I.I= 76.00%) was ranked as first factor causing time delay. This result show that mistakes in design
documents will affect the project time and will delay the approval of the design and producing them which will lead to time
delay.

ID Design Related Factor
Changes of design by owner
4.2 76.00% 1 73.33% 1 70.59% 1 63.33% 4
or his agent during work
Mistakes and delay in producing

4.3 76.00% 1 70.67% 2 61.18% 2 66.67% 2
design documents
Unclear and Insufficient details

4.5 74.00% 3 68.67% 4 58.82% 4 70.00% 1
in the drawing
4.4 Incomplete project design 72.00% 4 70.00% 3 61.18% 2 60.00% 6
Designs errors because of
4.6 66.00% 5 62.67% 5 52.94% 5 63.33% 4
designers
4.1 Complicated project design 62.00% 6 52.00% 6 42.35% 6 66.67% 2
Table 4.11 Design related factors result in time delay
Unclear and insufficient details in the drawings was ranked in the third position with importance of index (I.I= 74.00%). As
shown in table 4.10 the owner respondents ranked “complicated project design” as the least factor causing time overrun with
importance of index (I.I= 62.00%). The appropriate explanation for this result that there is no problem with complicated
project design and the designer are experienced and competent to design and finish a complicated project design on
time.
The contractor respondents as shown in table 4.10 ranked “changes of design by owner or his agent during work” as the
highest factor causing time delay in projects with importance of index (I.I= 73.33%). This is result in agreement with the
owner respondents. The second factor ranked by the contractor respondents was “mistakes and delay in producing design
documents” with importance of index (I.I= 70.67%). The contractor respondents ranked “incomplete project design” (I.I=
70.00%) as third factor causing time delay. The incomplete project design will result in work suspension which lead to time
delay.
The contractor respondents ranked “complicated project design” as the least factor that affect time delay in construction
project with importance of index (I.I= 52.00%) as shown in table 4.10. this is result in agreement with the result of the owner
respondents.
Table 4.10 shows that the consultant respondents ranked “changes in design by owner or his agent during work” as first
factor causing time delay with importance of index (I.I= 70.59%). The second factor ranked by the consultant respondents
was “mistakes and delay in producing design documents” (I.I= 61.18%) and “incomplete design” (I.I= 61.18). This result in
total conformity with the contractor respondents for the highest three factors and in total conformity with the owner
respondents for the highest two factors causing time delay but in case of the contractor and owner the value of importance of
index was higher.
The consultant respondents ranked “complicated project design” as the lowest factor causing time delay with importance of
index (I.I= 42.35%). This result is in totally agreement with the result of the owner and contractor respondents, but in case of
the consultant the value of importance of index is lower than the contractor and the owner and this shows that the
complicated project design is no problem for the designer as they are qualified and experienced.
As shown in table 4.10 the project management respondents ranked “unclear and insufficient details of the drawings” in the
first position causing time delay with importance of index (I.I= 70.00%). While the second factor causing time delay ranked
by the project management respondents was “mistakes and delay in producing design documents” (I.I= 66.67%), this result
is in totally conformity with the consultant and contractor respondents. Also, “complicated design project) (I.I= 66.67%) was
ranked as second factor causing time delay.
In table 4.10 the project management respondents ranked “incomplete project design” as the least factor causing time delay
with importance of index (I.I= 60.00%). This result is not in agreement with the result of the other respondents (owner,
consultant and contractor) where all of them ranked “complicated project design” as the least factor.
Correlation
Coefficient
Coefficient Owner Coefficient
and Owner and
Project
Management
Design 0.932 0.007 0.853 0.031 0.088 0.868
Group Coefficient Contractor and Consultant and
Consultant P-value Management P-value Management P-value
Design 0.979 0.001 0.262 0.616 0.407 0.424
Table 4.12 Correlation coefficient of design group among owner, contractor, consultant and project management
“design related factors”. In this group the correlation coefficient between owner and contractor equals to 0.932 with P-
value= 0.007. P-value is less than the level of significant α =0.05, so there is significant between owner and contractor. The
correlation coefficient between owner and consultant equals to 0.853 with P-value= 0.031. P-value is less than the level of
owner and project management equals to 0.088 with P-value= 0.868. P-value is higher than the level of significant α =0.05,
so the relationship between owner and contractor is not significant. The correlation coefficient between contractor and
consultant equals to 0.979 with P-value= 0.001. P-value is less than the level of significant α =0.05, so the relationship
between owner and contractor is significant. The correlation coefficient between contractor and project management equals
to 0.262 with P-value= 0.616. P-value is higher than the level of significant α =0.05, so the relationship between owner and
contractor is not significant. The correlation coefficient between contractor and consultant equals to 0.407 with P-value=
0.424. P-value is higher than the level of significant α =0.05, so the relationship between owner and contractor is not
significant.
4.0.4 Group five: Labour and Equipment Related Factor

Table 4.12 show that the owner respondents ranked “low productivity of labours” in the first position of the factors that
cause time delay with importance of index (I.I= 86.00%). This result explain that labours that lack training, different labour
trade work in the same area due to poor planning such as delay in fixing reinforcement by steel fixture due to waiting for the
completion of carpenter’s framework, low welfare, low morality and the location of the site, these factors may lead to low
productivity of labours where instead of finishing one day task in one day will be finished in more than day, this lead to time
delay in projects. “Unskilled labours” with importance of index (I.I= 80.00%) was ranked by the owner respondents in the
second position of the factors causing time delay. This result show that unskilled labours will take long time to finish one
task than the skilled and trained one, also he may result in rework in completed work due mistake which lead to time delay.
Third Factor was ranked by the owner respondents as shown in table 4.12 was “repeated crashes of equipment” with
importance of (I.I= 78.00%). This result show that the equipment in Egypt is in bad shape, old and crashes a lot and need a
lot of repairs which lead to work suspension which result in time overrun.
The owner respondents ranked “slow mobilization of equipment” as the lowest factor causing time delay in project with
importance of index (I.I= 64.00). This result explain that the project and site are ready and mobilized with all the suitable
equipment needed for get the activities completed and prepared very well before starting the activities and the project.
Table 4.13 Labour and equipment related factors
Project
Labour and Equipment Owner Contractor Consultant
ID Management
Related Factor
5.5 Low productivity of labours 86.00% 1 77.33% 1 71.76% 1 83.33% 1
5.6 Unskilled labours 80.00% 2 70.00% 4 70.59% 2 76.67% 3
5.2 repeated crashes of equipment 78.00% 3 74.00% 2 61.18% 4 80.00% 2
5.4 Shortage of Labours 72.00% 4 70.67% 3 63.53% 3 73.33% 4
5.1 Shortage of equipment 68.00% 5 62.67% 6 58.82% 5 73.33% 4
Slow mobilization of the
5.3 64.00% 6 65.33% 5 55.29% 6 70.00% 6
equipment
As shown in table 4.12 the contractor respondents ranked “low productivity of labours” in the first position with importance
of index (I.I= 77.33%). While the second factor causing time overrun that ranked by the contractor respondents was
“repeated crashes of equipment” with importance of index (I.I= 74.00%). “Shortage of labours” was ranked as third factor
causing time delay in construction project with importance of index (I.I= 70.67%). This result show that the contractor relies
on small numbers of labours to finish the activities. The load is big and burden the physical and psychological of the labours
and what makes it more complex that low wages of the labours. The human resource is consider one of the main resources
for the construction so, any shortage in labours will lead to time delay.
Table 4.12 show that the contractor respondents ranked “shortage of equipment” as the least factor causing time delay This
result show that the equipment are available anytime and affordable anytime during the construction projects.
Table 4.12 show that the consultant respondents ranked “low productivity of labours” with importance of index (I.I=
71.76%) as first factor causing time delay. “Unskilled labours” with importance of index (I.I= 70.59%) was ranked as second
factor causing time delay. This result is in totally conformity with the owner and contractor respondents which confirm the
high importance of the problem of low productivity of labour and the importance of training the labours. The third factor was
“shortage of labours” with importance of index (I.I= 63.53%).
The consultant respondents ranked “shortage of equipment” (I.I= 58.82%) and “slow mobilization of equipment” (I.I=
55.29%) as shown in table 4.12 as the least factor causing time overrun. This result is in conformity with the result of owner
respondents, but in case of the consultant the value of importance of index is lower. This show that the equipment are
available and fast to mobilized. This result is fully agree with the result of the owner respondents.
As shown in table 4.12 the project management respondents ranked “low productivity of labours” with importance of index
(I.I= 83.33%) as first important factor causing time delay. This result is in conformity with the result from the owner,
contractor and consultant respondents, but in case of project management the importance of index is higher than the
contractor and consultant. The second factor was “repeated crashes of the equipment” with importance of index (I.I=
80.00%). The third factor was “unskilled labours” with importance of index (I.I= 76.67%). This result is in identical
agreement with the owner, contractor and consultant respondents despite the rank order. The project management
respondents ranked “slow mobilization of the equipment” with importance of index (I.I= 70.00%) and “shortage of
equipment” (I.I= 73.33%) as the least factors causing time delay. The same opinion of the respondents shows the importance
of this factors in time delay.
Correlation
Coefficient
Owner and Owner and
Project
Management
Labour and
Equipment 0.771 0.072 0.943 0.005 0.916 0.010
Labour and
Equipment 0.714 0.111 0.794 0.060 0.794 0.060
Table 4.14 Correlation coefficient of labour and equipment group
“labour and equipment related factors”. In this group the correlation coefficient between owner and contractor equals to
0.771 with P-value= 0.072. P-value is higher than the level of significant α =0.05, so there is no significant between owner
and contractor. The correlation coefficient between owner and consultant equals to 0.943 with P-value= 0.005. P-value is
less than the level of significant α =0.05, so the relationship between owner and contractor is significant. The correlation
coefficient between owner and project management equals to 0.916 with P-value= 0.010. P-value is lower than the level of
contractor and consultant equals to 0.714 with P-value= 0.111. P-value is higher than the level of significant α =0.05, so the
relationship between owner and contractor is not significant. The correlation coefficient between contractor and project
management equals to 0.794 with P-value= 0.060. P-value is higher than the level of significant α =0.05, so the relationship
between owner and contractor is not significant. The correlation coefficient between contractor and consultant equals to
0.794 with P-value= 0.060. P-value is higher than the level of significant α =0.05, so the relationship between owner and
contractor is not significant.
4.0.5 Group six: Material Factors

Table 4.14 show that the owner respondents ranked “inflation of materials prices” with importance of index (I.I= 78.00%) as
first factor causing time delay. This result show that the changes in material prices may cause work suspension, delay in
material delivery which will result in time delay. The second factor was “shortage of material” (I.I= 70.00%). The third
factor ranked by the owner respondents “delay in delivery of materials” (I.I= 66.00). Delay of delivering material on time
will lead to lose labours effort and the time to construct which will lead to time delay.
The owner respondents ranked “unreliable suppliers” (I.I= 60.00%) and “poor quality of materials” (I.I= 60.00%) as the least
two factors causing time delay. This result show that the suppliers are reliable, they can prepare and produce the material on
time with the required quality and show that the material quality is good in Egypt.

ID Material Related Factor
6.4 Inflation of materials price 78.00% 1 65.33% 1 70.59% 1 70.00% 1
6.5 Shortage of materials 70.00% 2 62.67% 3 55.29% 4 66.67% 2
6.2 Delay in delivery of materials 66.00% 3 64.67% 2 60.00% 2 66.67% 2
6.1 Unreliable suppliers 60.00% 4 54.00% 4 57.65% 3 56.67% 4
6.3 Poor quality of materials 60.00% 4 52.00% 5 55.29% 4 56.67% 4
Table 4.15 Material related factors result in time overrun
Table 4.14 show that the contractor respondents ranked “inflation of materials prices” in the first position with (I.I=
65.33%). The second factor ranked was “delay in delivery of materials” (I.I= 64.67%). The third factor ranked by the
contractor was “shortage of material” (I.I= 62.67%). The contractor respondents ranked “unreliable suppliers” (I.I= 54.00%)
and “poor quality of materials” (I.I= 52.00%). This result in conformity with the result from the owner respondents.
Table 4.14 show that the consultant respondents ranked “inflation of material prices” in the first position of the factors that
cause time delay with importance of index (I.I= 70.59%). “Delay in delivery of materials” (I.I= 60.00%) was ranked in
second position. Third factor causing time overrun was “unreliable suppliers” with importance of index (I.I= 57.65%). The
consultant respondents ranked “shortage of materials” (I.I= 55.29%) and “poor quality of materials” (I.I= 55.29%) as the
least two factor causing time delay in projects.
In table 4.14 the project management ranked “inflation of materials prices” (I.I= 70.00%) as first factor causing time delay.
“Shortage of material” (I.I= 66.67%) and “delay in delivery of materials” (I.I= 66.67%) were ranked as second factors
causing time delay. “Unreliable suppliers” (I.I= 56.67%) and “poor quality of materials” (I.I= 56.67%) as the least two factor
causing time delay. This result is in conformity with the other respondents which show the importance of this factors.
“material related factors”. In this group the correlation coefficient between owner and contractor equals to 0.849 with P-
between owner and project management equals to 0.943 with P-value= 0.016. P-value is lower than the level of significant α
=0.05, so the relationship between owner and contractor is significant. The correlation coefficient between contractor and
equals to 0.943 with P-value= 0.016. P-value is lower than the level of significant α =0.05, so the relationship between
owner and contractor is significant. The correlation coefficient between contractor and consultant equals to 0.657 with P-
significant.
Table 4.16 Correlation coefficient among owner, contractor, consultant and project management for group "materials"
Correlation
Coefficient
Owner and Owner and
Project
Management
Materials 0.849 0.069 0.559 0.327 0.943 0.016
Correlation
Coefficient
Group P-value Contractor and P-value Consultant and P-value
Contractor and
Project Project
Consultant
Management Management
Materials 0.849 0.069 0.943 0.016 0.657 0.228
Group seven: Project Related Factors
In table 4.16 the owner respondents ranked “slow flow of information among members of the project team” (I.I= 76.00%) in
the first position of the factors causing time delay. This result explain that the delay and slowness of passing information
between the project team members will result in delay of some works of the project which will lead to time delay. The
second factor was “legal disputes between project participants” (I.I= 74.00%) which result in time delay. The third factors
ranked by the owner respondents were “inappropriate contract terms” (I.I= 70.00%) and “ineffective delay penalty” (I.I=
70.00%).
The owner respondents ranked “short duration of original contract” (I.I= 64.00%) and “complicated project (type of project,
size, etc.)” (I.I= 62.00) as the lowest two factors causing time delay.

ID Project Related Factor
Slow flow of information among

7.3 76.00% 1 66.67% 2 58.82% 5 70.00% 1
members of the project team
Legal disputes between project

7.6 74.00% 2 54.00% 4 61.18% 2 63.33% 3
participants
7.2 Ineffective delay penalty 70.00% 3 51.33% 6 61.18% 2 60.00% 4
7.4 Inappropriate contract clauses 70.00% 3 59.33% 3 63.53% 1 56.67% 6
7.5 Short duration of original contract 64.00% 5 68.67% 1 60.00% 4 70.00% 1

Complicated project (type of project,
7.1 62.00% 6 54.00% 4 56.47% 6 60.00% 4
size, etc.)
Table 4.17 Project factors that result in time overrun
Table 4.16 show that the contractor respondents ranked “short duration of original contract” (I.I= 68.67%) as the first factor
causing time overrun. The appropriate explanation of this factor that the duration of contract is shorter than it supposed to be
due to bad planning for the project which will lead in time delay. The second factor was “slow flow of information among
members of the project team” (I.I= 66.67%). “Inappropriate contract clauses” (I.I= 59.33%) was ranked as third factor
causing time delay. This results explain that some contract contain a pay when paid which mean that the contractor will pay
the subcontractor when he get paid from the owner, in that case if the owner delayed to pay the contractor will delay the
payment to the subcontractor which may lead to work suspension or delay in work. Then time delay will occur. The
contractor respondents ranked “ineffective penalty” (I.I= 51.33%) as the lowest factor causing time overrun.
Table 4.16 show that the consultant respondents ranked “inappropriate contract clauses” in the firs position of the factors
causing time overrun. “Legal disputes between project participants” (I.I= 61.18%) and “Ineffective delay penalty” (I.I=
61.18%) were ranked second by the consultant respondents that cause time delay. This result show that the legal disputes
between project participants (stakeholders) may lead to delay in payment, approval on some changes or some work has done
which result in time delay. The consultant respondents ranked “slow flow of information among members of project team”
(I.I= 58.82%) and “complicated project (type of project, size, etc.)” as the least two factors causing time overrun in
construction projects.

As shown in table 4.16 the project management respondents ranked “short duration of original contract” (I.I= 70.00%) and
“slow flow of information among members of project team” (I.I= 70.00%) in the first position of the factors causing time
delay. “Legal dispute between project participant” (I.I= 63.33%) was ranked as the third factor causing time overrun. The
project management respondents ranked “inappropriate contract clauses” as the lowest factor causing time delay. This result
is totally disagree with the other respondents (owner, contractor and consultant).
“project related factors”. In this group the correlation coefficient between owner and contractor equals to 0.041 with P-
significant.
Table 4.18 Correlation coefficient among owner, contractor, consultant and project management for group "project"
Correlation
Coefficient
Owner and Owner and
Project
Management
Project 0.041 0.939 0.401 0.431 0.148 0.780
Project 0.329 0.524 0.569 0.239 0.542 0.267
4.0.6 Group Eight: External Factors
As shown in table 4.18 the owner respondents ranked “different ways of bribes” (I.I= 86.00%) as the first factor causing time
delay. This result show that the government engineer will delay the payment for the finished work unless get paid with some
money or gifts or doing some additional work outside the project which result in time delay. “Inappropriate government
policy” (I.I= 82.00%) was ranked as second factor causing time result. “Inflation of material prices” (I.I= 78.00%) was
ranked as third factor causing time overrun. The owner respondents ranked “low productivity of material inside the country”
(I.I= 50.00%) as the least factor causing time overrun. This result show that the production of material in the country is high
and there is enough material for construction projects.
ID External Factor
8.7 Different ways of bribes 86.00% 1 77.33% 1 67.06% 2 73.33% 2
8.2 Inappropriate government policy 82.00% 2 67.33% 4 69.41% 1 66.67% 4
8.6 Inflation of materials price 78.00% 3 68.00% 3 67.06% 2 63.33% 5

Changes in the law and government
8.5 74.00% 4 62.00% 5 57.65% 5 70.00% 3
regulations
8.3 Unsuitable weather condition 60.00% 5 52.67% 6 37.65% 7 63.33% 5
Force majeure such as

8.4 54.00% 6 73.33% 2 62.35% 4 76.67% 1
(war, revolution, earthquakes, etc.)
Low productivity of materials inside

8.1 50.00% 7 49.33% 7 49.41% 6 63.33% 5
the country
Table 4.19 External factors that cause time delay
The contractor respondents as shown in table 4.18 ranked “different ways of bribes” with importance of index (I.I= 77.33%)
as the first factor causing time overrun. “Force majeure such (war, revolution, earthquakes, etc.)” (I.I= 73.33%) was ranked
as second factor in time delay. This result explain that force majeure will lead to low security in the country, increasing of
thefts which may lead to work suspension which will result in time delay. The third factor ranked by the contractor
respondents was “inflation of materials prices” (I.I= 68.00%).
Table 4.18 show that the contractor respondents ranked “unsuitable weather condition” (I.I= 52.67%) and “low productivity
of material inside the country” as the least factors causing time delay. This result show that the weather in Egypt is very
good, moderate and predictable weather.
As shown in table 4.18 the consultant respondents ranked “inappropriate government policy” (I.I= 69.41%) as the first factor
causing time overrun. “Different ways of bribes” (I.I= 67.06%) and “inflation materials prices” (I.I= 67.06%) were ranked in
the second position by the consultant respondents. This result is in conformity with the result from owner respondents, but in
case of owner the value of importance of index is higher. The consultant respondents ranked “low productivity of materials
inside in the country” (I.I= 49.41%) and “unsuitable weather condition” (I.I= 37.65%) as the least two factors causing time
delay in projects.
Table 4.18 show that the project management respondents ranked “force majeure such (war, revolution, earthquakes, etc.)”
(I.I= 76.67%) in the first position of the factors that cause time overrun. “Different ways of bribes” (I.I= 73.33%) was ranked
in second position. Where “changes in the law and government regulation” (I.I= 70.00%) was ranked as third factor.
The project management respondents ranked “low productivity of materials inside the country” (I.I= 63.33%) and
“unsuitable weather condition” (I.I= 63.33%) as the lowest two factors causing time delay. This result is in totally
conformity with the owner, consultant and contractor results which indicate that the weather in Egypt is very good and
suitable and the material are available in the country.

“external factors”. In this group the correlation coefficient between owner and contractor equals to 0.607 with P-value=
0.148. P-value is higher than the level of significant α =0.05, so there is no significant between owner and contractor. The
correlation coefficient between owner and consultant equals to 0.782 with P-value= 0.038. P-value is lower than the level of
owner and project management = 0.143 with P-value= 0.760. P-value is higher than the level of significant α =0.05, so the
relationship between owner and contractor is not significant. The correlation coefficient between contractor and consultant
owner and contractor is not significant. The correlation coefficient between contractor and project management equals to
0.715 with P-value= 0.071. P-value is higher than the level of significant α =0.05, so the relationship between owner and
contractor is not significant. The correlation coefficient between contractor and consultant equals to 0.253 with P-value=
0.584. P-value is higher than the level of significant α =0.05, so the relationship between owner and contractor is not
significant.
Table 4.20 Correlation coefficient among owner, contractor, consultant and project management for external factors group
Correlation
Coefficient
Owner and Owner and
Project
Management
External 0.607 0.148 0.782 0.038 0.143 0.760
External 0.714 0.071 0.715 0.071 0.253 0.584
4.0.7 Ranking of all factors causing time overrun from perspective of all four parties (owner, contractor,
consultant and project management)
Project
Factors Owner Contractor Consultant Management
RII Rank RII Rank RII Rank RII Rank
Low productivity of labours 86.00% 1 77.33% 2 71.76% 3 83.33% 1
Different ways of bribes 86.00% 1 77.33% 2 67.06% 15 73.33% 6
Communication and coordination
84.00% 3 76.00% 4 75.29% 1 70.00% 13
problems
Inappropriate government policy 82.00% 4 67.33% 27 69.41% 11 66.67% 25
Unskilled labours 80.00% 5 70.00% 17 70.59% 5 76.67% 3
repeated crashes of equipment 78.00% 6 74.00% 5 61.18% 25 80.00% 2
Inflation of materials price 78.00% 6 65.33% 31 70.59% 5 70.00% 13
Inflation of materials price 78.00% 6 68.00% 25 67.06% 15 63.33% 36
Financing delay of the project 76.00% 9 80.67% 1 67.06% 15 70.00% 13
Change orders during work 76.00% 9 72.00% 9 69.41% 11 76.67% 3
Delay in work due to subcontractors 76.00% 9 72.00% 9 68.24% 14 70.00% 13
Poor site financial management 76.00% 9 58.67% 45 64.71% 19 60.00% 43
Unclear and Insufficient details and
76.00% 9 66.67% 28 54.12% 51 70.00% 13
drawing
Changes of design by owner or
76.00% 9 73.33% 6 70.59% 5 63.33% 36
his agent during work
Mistakes and delay in producing

76.00% 9 70.67% 15 61.18% 25 66.67% 25
design documents
slow of flow information among

76.00% 9 66.67% 28 58.82% 37 70.00% 13
members of the project team
Poor site management and supervision 74.00% 17 68.67% 20 72.94% 2 73.33% 6

Poor communication and coordination 74.00% 17 70.00% 17 71.76% 3 73.33% 6
Unclear and Insufficient details and
74.00% 17 68.67% 20 58.82% 37 70.00% 13
drawing
Legal disputes between project
74.00% 17 54.00% 48 61.18% 25 63.33% 36
participants
Changes in the law and government
74.00% 17 62.00% 41 57.65% 40 70.00% 13
regulations
Work suspension 72.00% 22 56.00% 47 60.00% 31 60.00% 43
Intervention of the owner 72.00% 22 68.00% 25 70.59% 5 63.33% 36
Delay in site mobilization 72.00% 22 62.00% 41 65.88% 18 56.67% 49
Incomplete project design 72.00% 22 70.00% 17 61.18% 25 60.00% 43
Shortage of Labours 72.00% 22 70.67% 15 63.53% 20 73.33% 6
Slowness in decision making 70.00% 27 71.33% 13 63.53% 20 66.67% 25
Unrealistic contract duration 70.00% 27 68.67% 20 56.47% 42 70.00% 13
Reconstruction due to mistakes during
70.00% 27 63.33% 35 55.29% 44 56.67% 49
construction
Poor communication and coordination 70.00% 27 73.33% 6 61.18% 25 56.67% 49
Shortage of materials 70.00% 27 62.67% 37 55.29% 44 66.67% 25
Ineffective delay penalty 70.00% 27 51.33% 54 61.18% 25 60.00% 43
Unfavourable contract terms 70.00% 27 59.33% 44 63.53% 20 56.67% 49
Unqualified project team 68.00% 34 66.00% 30 69.41% 11 73.33% 6
Delay of design and material samples
68.00% 34 72.00% 9 55.29% 44 66.67% 25
approval
Inexperienced Consultant 68.00% 34 63.33% 35 55.29% 44 66.67% 25
Shortage of equipment 68.00% 34 62.67% 37 58.82% 37 73.33% 6
Delay in material samples and drawings
66.00% 38 68.67% 20 70.59% 5 66.67% 25
preparation
Designs errors because of designers 66.00% 38 62.67% 37 52.94% 52 63.33% 36
Delay in delivery of materials 66.00% 38 64.67% 34 60.00% 31 66.67% 25
delay in approval of major changes in
64.00% 41 71.33% 13 63.53% 20 66.67% 25
work scope
Slow mobilization of the equipment 64.00% 41 65.33% 31 55.29% 44 70.00% 13
Short duration of original contract 64.00% 41 68.67% 20 60.00% 31 70.00% 13
Inexperienced Contractor 62.00% 44 65.33% 31 70.59% 5 70.00% 13
Conflict between consultant and designer 62.00% 44 60.67% 43 60.00% 31 73.33% 6
Complicated project design 62.00% 44 52.00% 52 42.35% 54 66.67% 25
Complicated project (type of project, size,
62.00% 44 54.00% 48 56.47% 42 60.00% 43
etc.)
Delay in delivering the site to the
60.00% 48 56.67% 46 55.29% 44 66.67% 25
contractor
Unreliable suppliers 60.00% 48 54.00% 48 57.65% 40 56.67% 49
Poor quality of materials 60.00% 48 52.00% 52 55.29% 44 56.67% 49
Unsuitable weather condition 60.00% 48 52.67% 51 37.65% 55 63.33% 36
Inaccurate site investigation 58.00% 52 62.67% 37 60.00% 31 53.33% 55
Delay in revising and approving

56.00% 53 72.00% 9 60.00% 31 60.00% 43
design documentation
Force majeure such as

54.00% 54 73.33% 6 62.35% 24 76.67% 3
(war, revolution, earthquakes, etc.)
Low productivity of materials inside the
50.00% 55 49.33% 55 49.41% 53 63.33% 36
country
Table 4.21 All factors ranking from importance of index between owner, contractor, and consultant and project management
“time overrun”. In this group the correlation coefficient between owner and contractor equals to 0.462 with P-value= 0.000.
P-value is lower than the level of significant α =0.05, so there is significant between owner and contractor. The correlation
coefficient between owner and consultant equals to 0.544 with P-value= 0.000. P-value is lower than the level of significant
α =0.05, so the relationship between owner and contractor is significant. The correlation coefficient between owner and
project management = 0.016 with P-value= 0.910. P-value is higher than the level of significant α =0.05, so the relationship
between owner and contractor is not significant. The correlation coefficient between contractor and consultant equals to
0.543 with P-value= 0.000. P-value is lower than the level of significant α =0.05, so the relationship between owner and
contractor is significant. The correlation coefficient between contractor and project management equals to 0.079 with P-
significant. The correlation coefficient between contractor and consultant equals to 0.012 with P-value= 0.928. P-value is
higher than the level of significant α =0.05, so the relationship between owner and contractor is not significant.
Table 4.22 Correlation coefficient among owner, contractor, consultant and project management for all groups
Correlation
Coefficient
Group P-value P-value2 Owner and P-value3
Owner and Owner and
Project
Management
Design 0.462 0.000 0.544 0.000 0.016 0.910

Group Coefficient Contractor and Consultant and
Consultant P-value4 Management P-value5 Management P-value6
Materials 0.543 0.000 0.079 0.564 0.012 0.928
Conclusion and Recommendations
The owners are recommended to revise and check the contracts document such (the clauses, the duration of the contract,
etc.). This is because unfavourable clauses such pay when paid can lead to lack of funds to the contract that will result in
work suspension and also the duration of the contract if too short for the project and unreasonable comparing with the type
and size of the project, delay and cost overrun may happen. The owner should pay the payment to the contractor on time
because it will limit or constrain the contractors to finance the work.
The owners are recommended to revise the drawing and the planes of the project before starting and to minimize change
orders. This because wrong planes and drawings will lead to work suspension and changes in the design during work may
result in rework of completed work or will affect other activities which will cause delay. The owners are recommended to
have a good team to communicate and to coordinate with the other parties.
Owners need to be in good agreement with the other project participants such as (stakeholders) in order to prevent any delay
in payment or approval to the project changes or work. Owners are need to have good technical team who is able to manage
the various stages of the project and to monitor the percentage of the performance and to compare it with the planned one.
5.0.1 Recommendations for the contractor

The contractors are recommended to have qualified and reliable subcontractors in order to prevent any delay because of
them. Contractors need to monitor the quality of the work and performance and to set the required quality for the different
activities in order to prevent time delay and increase in cost.
The contractors are recommended to prepare good and new equipment in site to avoid repeated equipment crashes which
will cause time and cost overrun. Contractors should have enough and the suitable cash before starting the project to avoid
financial problem. Also, he recommended to monitor and control the financial spending and payment to avoid any financial
problem which will result in time and cost overrun.
The contractors are recommended to have high qualified, quantified, moral and skilled labours in order to prevent the low
productivity of the labours and mistakes done by them which will result in time and cost overrun. Contractors recommended
to have the ability to manage and supervise the site and the work such as (choosing the right location for material and
equipment storage, the location or assignment of the labours in the site, etc.) to prevent wasting of time and to assign
technical and administrative staff once the project is awarded to make plans to achieve completion with the required time,
quality and estimated cost.
Contractors should have a good communication and coordination with the other parties such as (the project manager,
consultant, owner, etc.). Contractors are recommended to buy the construction materials before starting of the project and set
up a store for the materials in case of fluctuation of material prices to prevent time and cost overrun.
5.0.2 Recommendations for the consultant

The consultants are recommended to be experienced and qualified to give suitable and right instruction at the right time and
to be able answer any of the contractor questions to prevent time and cost overrun. Consultant is recommended to revise and
review the drawings details and design documents to prevent any time delay and cost increase in the project. Consultant is
also required to be accurate during site investigation and prevent any delay in investigation to avoid time and cost overrun.
Consultant need to prevent any confliction between the designer to prevent time and cost overrun, since any conflict between
the consultant and the designer will result in delay of the production of the design document which will result in time and
cost overrun.
References
A. (2014) 'EFFECT OF CONSTRUCTION DELAYS ON PROJECT TIME OVERRUN: INDIAN SCENARIO'.
International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology 03 (01), 543-547
Abu Saad, A. (2015) Risk Factors That Cause Cost Overrun In Construction Projects: Jordan As A Case Study. Degree of
Masters. Coventry University
Aibinu, A. and Odeyinka, H. (2006) 'Construction Delays And Their Causative Factors In Nigeria'. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management 132 (7), 667-677
Al-Najjar, J. (2008) Factors Influencing Time And Cost Overruns On Construction Projects In The Gaza Strip. Masters of
science. The Islamic University – Gaza
Alaghbari, W., Razali A. Kadir, M., Salim, A. and Ernawati, (2007) 'The Significant Factors Causing Delay Of Building
Construction Projects In Malaysia'. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 14 (2), 192-206
Alnuaimi, A. and Al Mohsin, M. (2013) 'Causes Of Delay In Completion Of Construction Projects In Oman'. International
Conference on Innovations in Engineering and Technology
Al‐Kharashi, A. and Skitmore, M. (2009) 'Causes Of Delays In Saudi Arabian Public Sector Construction Projects'.
Construction Management and Economics 27 (1), 3-23
Ameh, O. and Osegbo, E. (2011) 'Study Of Relationship Between Time Overrun And Productivity On Construction Sites'.
IJCSCM 1 (1), 56-67
Assaf, S. and Al-Hejji, S. (2006) 'Causes Of Delay In Large Construction Projects'. International Journal of Project
Management 24 (4), 349-357
BIN MOHAMAD, M. (2010) THE FACTORS AND EFFECT OF DELAY IN GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
(CASE STUDY IN KUANTAN). Bachelor Degree. University Malaysia Pahang
Chan, D. and Kumaraswamy, M. (1997) 'A Comparative Study Of Causes Of Time Overruns In Hong Kong Construction
Projects'. International Journal of Project Management 15 (1), 55-63
Chouman, J. (2015) Concurrent Delays | Constructionweekonline.Com [online] available from

<http://www.constructionweekonline.com/article-16546-concurrent-delays/> [3 July 2015]
Darwish, M. N. (2015). CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY - CEMENT BASED MATERIALS AND CIVIL
INFRASTRUCTURE (CBM & CI), Egypt.
Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (2000) Handbook Of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications
Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (2005) The SAGE Handbook Of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications
Durdyev, s., Ismail, S. and Abu Bakar, N. (2012) 'FACTORS CAUSING COST OVERRUNS IN CONSTRUCTION OF
RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS; CASE STUDY OF TURKEY'. International Journal of Science and Management 1 (3)
Hossain, L. (2009) 'Communications And Coordination In Construction Projects'. Construction Management and Economics
27 (1), 25-39
Kazaz, A., Ulubeyli, S. and Tuncbilekli, N. (2012) 'Causes Of Delays In Construction Projects In Turkey'. Journal of Civil
Engineering and Management 18 (3), 426-435
Kothari, C. (2004) Research Methodology. New Delhi: New Age International (P) Ltd.
Kraiem, Z. and Diekmann, J. (1987) 'Concurrent Delays In Construction Projects'. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management 113 (4), 591-602
Kumar, R. (2005) Research Methodology. London: SAGE
ltd, R. (2015) Construction In Egypt - Key Trends And Opportunities To 2018 [online] available from
<http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/2858638/construction-in-egypt-key-trends-and> [15 August 2015]
Muhwezi, L., Acai, J., Otim, G., Muhwezi, L., Acai, J. and Otim, G. (2014) 'An Assessment Of The Factors Causing Delays
On Building Construction Projects In Uganda'. International Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
[online] 3 (1), 13-23. available from <http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.ijcem.20140301.02.html#Sec2.1> [15 August
2015]
Muiang, E., Granja, A. and Ruiz, J. (2015) Influence Factors On Cost And Time Overruns In Mozambicans Construction
Projects: Preliminary Findings.
NEGA, F. (2008) CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF COST OVERRUN ON PUBLIC BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS IN ETHIOPIA. Master of Science. ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY
Pourrostam, T. and Ismail, A. (2012) 'Causes And Effects Of Delay In Iranian Construction Projects'. IJET 4 (5), 598-601
Statistics Solutions, (2015) Correlation (Pearson, Kendall, Spearman) - Statistics Solutions [online] available from
<http://www.statisticssolutions.com/correlation-pearson-kendall-spearman> [15 August 2015]
Subramani, T. (2014) 'Causes Of Cost Overrun In Construction'. IOSR Journal of Engineering 4 (6), 01-07
Swefie, M. (2013) Improving Project Performance Using Lean Construction In Egypt: A Proposed Framework. Degree of
Masters of Science. The American University in Cairo.
Sweis, G. (2013) 'Factors Affecting Time Overruns In Public Construction Projects: The Case Of Jordan'. IJBM 8 (23)
Sweis, G., Sweis, R., Abu Hammad, A. and Shboul, A. (2008) 'Delays In Construction Projects: The Case Of Jordan'.
International Journal of Project Management 26 (6), 665-674
T.Subramani et al Int., (2014) 'Time Overrun And Cost Effectiveness In The Construction Industry'. Journal of Engineering
Research and Applications 4 (6)
Taher, E. and Pandey, R. (2013) 'Study Of Delay In Project Planning And Design Stage Of Civil Engineering Projects'.
International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT) 2 (3)
Thabane, L., Ma, J., Chu, R., Cheng, J., Ismaila, A., Rios, L., Robson, R., Thabane, M., Giangregorio, L. and Goldsmith, C.
(2010) 'A Tutorial On Pilot Studies: The What, Why And How'. BMC Med Res Methodol 10 (1), 1
Ubani, E., Okorocha, K. and Emeribe, S. (2015) 'ANALYSIS OF FACTORS INFLUENCING TIME AND COST
OVERRUNS ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN SOUTH EASTERN NIGERIA.'. International Journal of
Management Sciences and Business Research 2 (2)
W.M. Chan, D. and M. Kumaraswamy, M. (2002) 'Compressing Construction Durations: Lessons Learned From Hong Kong
Building Projects'. International Journal of Project Management 20 (1), 23-35
WEI, K. (2010) CAUSES, EFFECTS AND METHODS OF MINIMIZING DELAYS IN CONTRUCTION PROJECTS. The
degree of Bachelor. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Yount, W. (1988) Research Design And Statistical Analysis For Christian Ministry. [Fort Worth, TX?]: W.R. Yount
Zaneldin, E. (2006) 'Construction Claims In United Arab Emirates: Types, Causes, And Frequency'. International Journal of
Project Management 24 (5), 453-459
View publication stats

Time and Cost Overrun in Construction PR PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Time and Cost Overrun in Construction PR PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Time and Cost Overrun in Construction Projects in

successful project management can be achieved by accomplish the

𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 − 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴

Contractor’s responsibility of the delay:

5. Consultant’s responsibility of the delay:

6. Owner’s responsibility of the delay:

8. Causes of Cost overruns

site conditions (Location, unforeseen site * * *

Escalation of material prices * * * * *

Poor material management * *

Low productivity of materials * *

Poor quality of materials * *

Delay of material delivery * * * *

Financial problems (delay payment, etc.) * * * * * * * *

Interference of the owner * * *

Change/additional works by the owner * * * * * * *

Poor communication and coordination * * * *

Labours and equipment factors

Low productivity of the labours * *

Shortage of skilled labours * * * *

Labour and Equipment Factors

Lack of maintenance for the equipment *

Contractor’s financial problems * * * * * * *

Lack of contractor experience * * * * * *

Poor distribution of labours *

Poor site management * * * *

Delay/Mistakes because of subcontractors * * * *

Poor communications and coordination * * * * *

Lack of project staff and qualified staff * *

Consultant lack of experience * * * * * *

Lack of experience of consultant team * *

Poor communication and coordination * * * *

Delay in giving instructions *

Delay in approving major changes in work scope * * *

Delay in performing/ approving of tests and * * *

Design and documentation related factors

Delay in design work * * *

Design and documentation related factors

Poor construction planning * * *

Slowness in decision making among project * * *

Low managerial skills for all parties * *

9. Table 2.1 Comparison between Egypt and different countrie

Rank Delay factor Related category

1 Funding problems Owner

2 Different type of bribes External

3 Shortage of equipment Equipment

4 Ineffective project planning and scheduling Contractor

5 Poor site management and supervision Contractor

6 Poor financial control on site Contractor

7 Rework due to errors Contractor

8 Selecting inappropriate contractors Owner

10 Inadequate planning Owner

Top Ten delays ranked according to importance of index

Rank Delay factor Related category

1 Funding problems of completed work Owner

2 Changes of scope of work during construction Owner

3 Effects of subsurface conditions Project related

4 Low labour’s productivity Labour and equipment

5 Ineffective planning and scheduling of project Contractor

6 Project finance problems by contractors Contractor

7 Type of project bidding and award (lowest bidder) Owner

8 Lack of construction materials in market Material

9 Slowness in revising and approving design documents Owner