مهم جدا جدا an empirical approach for identifying critical time ovrerun risk factors in...
Post on 06-Jul-2015
140 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Journal of Economic & Administrative Sciences Vol. 24, No. 2, December 2008 (35 - 53)
An Empirical Approach for Identifying Critical Time-Ovrerun
Risk Factors in Kuwait’s Construction Projects
Dr. Hassan Al Zubaidi Mr. Srour Al Otaibi
Kuwait-Maastricht Business
School
Construction Team leader
Ministry of Public Work
Kuwait
Abstract Risk identification is an integral part of overall risk management
framework of projects. The risks associated with projects and their response
planning differs according to the country and the sector specific environment
in which they are being implemented. In this paper, the study is carried out
to identify the critical risk factors causing delay in Kuwait’s building and
infrastructure projects. The preparation of a preliminary list of risks and risk
factors is outlined, questionnaire development and survey details are
explained, and analysis of survey responses for the identification of delay
risk factors in Kuwait is presented. A case study analysis with respect to
time-overrun/delay of about 28 building and infrastructure projects executed
in Kuwait is also presented to validate the survey results. Survey and case
study results show that the frequency of time-overrun in Kuwait’s
construction projects is very high. The five most critical time-overrun factors
identified in Kuwait’s infrastructure and building projects are: delay in
government approvals/permits, delay in preparation and approval in
variation orders, client induced additional work beyond the original scope,
changed engineering conditions from the contract document and decreased
labor productivity due to extreme climatic conditions. All the above risk
factors are rated as moderately critical to very critical in Kuwait.
Introduction
Availability of adequate infrastructure facilities at reasonable cost is a
prerequisite for the economic development of a country. In recent decades
the Middle East States in general have experienced a boom in the
construction and infrastructure industry and experienced substantial growth
after escalated oil prices brought cash pouring into their economies. Global
economic research on Kuwait has indicated of exuberant growth for Kuwaiti economy with a Nominal GDP surge of 19.3% from 2003 to 2004, which was one of the highest in the world. (Kuwait Economic and Strategic Outlook, 2005). Robust economic conditions and increased private spending
as well as a strong pick up in gross capital formation driven by several
capital projects in Kuwait is anticipated to help the economy to sustain the
double digit growth rate further. Along with the oil and gas sector, the civil
Dr. Hassan Al Zubaiadi, Mr. Srour Al Otaibi December 2008
36
infrastructure and services-led non-oil sector in Kuwait are also anticipated
to exhibit a matching growth trends. After a recession in the late 1990s,
Kuwait is rejuvenating itself for higher investment in Civil Infrastructures. It
is expected that in Kuwait, for the next five years the private sector will
invest up to US$8bn in the construction sector, in addition US$3bn in
government investment.
Most of the large-scale construction projects are operated in complex and
dynamic conditions and is constantly confronted with various risks and
uncertainties. Kartam et al (2001) have studied the significance/contribution
of risk factors towards project delay and their preference of risk allocation
among major contractors in the Kuwait’s construction industry. The
significant risk factors identified are financial failure of contractors or
subcontractors, defective design, and delayed dispute resolution. In a study
of analyzing eight (8) Kuwaiti construction projects, Al-Sabah et al (2002)
found that, arbitration tribunal awarded KD31 million on contract price of
KD100 million (at 1980 price level). Many of the past construction projects
executed in Kuwait had time- and cost-overrun problems (Koushki et al.,
2005). Major Government contracts for construction in Kuwait are let as
lump sum projects (Design-Build), which are often encountered with construction disputes resulting, claims induced delay and cost-overrun.
Many of the projects exceed completion time by 100% in addition to
exceeding their budget.
Project Risks and their Characterization
In the context of project management, Chapman et al (1983) and Perry et al (1985) have expressed risk as an exposure to economic loss or gain
arriving from involvement in the construction process, whereas Wideman
(1986) have viewed risk as an exposure to loss only. Al-Bahar (1989)
characterized risk with three components: risk event, the uncertainty of the
event and the potential loss or gain. In general, risks in a project can be
either viewed as an opportunity for greater potential of return or as hazards
or threats, which affects the goal and the economic performance of the
organization that is promoting the project. It is manifested through the
occurrences of various risk events.
In this research, “risk” is used to indicate threat/hazard to the project from one or more events of a particular category/nature or origin, for example, Time-overrun risk. Risk Event is a specific event that could occur during the
project life cycle, which has a probability of occurrence and an adverse
impact on the project objectives. The key attributes of risk events are the
probability of occurrence and the impact of occurrence (RAMP, 2000). A
Journal of Economic & Administrative Sciences December 2008
37
Risk Factor is a factor, which could lead to the occurrence of one or more
risk events and is characterized by the probability of occurrence. Risk factors
do not affect project objectives directly but do so through risk events
(indirect impact). It is assumed that the realization of respective risk factors
will contribute to the risk/risk event (under which it is classified) with
varying degrees of influences (Thomas et al; 2006). The research seeks to
identify and evaluate the critical risk factors contributing to time-overrun in
both the public and private sectors. The main hypothesis this paper is trying
to test is “Is there a difference in criticality rating by different category of
respondents.
Research Methodology
The risks associated with construction projects differ according to the
country and the sector specific environment in which they are being
implemented. The political, legal, economic and regulatory environments in
Kuwait are different from other countries and risk management strategies
carried out in other project environments may not be directly suitable for the
Kuwait infrastructure and construction environment. One of the aims of this
research is to identify the critical risk factors causing time-overrun in the
building and infrastructure projects implemented in Kuwait. The process of
identification of critical risk factors was done in two stages and summarized
in Table 1.
Table 1: Process of Risk Factor Identification
Stage Process Details
1 Preparation of preliminary list of
risk factors
Study of literature including research papers and case study reports.
Discussions with project participants.
Unstructured interviews/discussions with project
participants for consolidation of risk factors and
their classification.
Content validation of list/questionnaire through
locally available experts.
2 Identification of critical risk factors
Questionnaire survey among senior project participants in Kuwait Construction Industry.
The survey responses were statistically analysed
for identifying critical risk factors. Validation of
survey results through case studies
A mixed approach of questionnaire survey followed by case study was
used for the research (Assaf et al, 1995; Chan et al, 1997; Odeh et al, 2000;
Dr. Hassan Al Zubaiadi, Mr. Srour Al Otaibi December 2008
38
Kartam et al, 2001; Aibinu et al, 2002). A preliminary list of various time-
overrun risk factors associated with building and infrastructure projects in
general and unique to the middle east and Kuwait construction project
environment was prepared based on desk based literature review and
discussions with project participants of Kuwait’s construction industry.
The preliminary list of risk factors causing time-overrun thus prepared
was further filtered out through unstructured interviews with locally
available project experts/participants. Thirty-three risk factors causing time-
overrun were short listed for including in the questionnaire. The short listed
risk factors that included in the questionnaire are given in Appendix 1.
Survey Approach
Due to the non-availability of organized information relating to the occurrence of risk factors and risk management in Kuwait’s construction industry, a mail questionnaire survey approach was considered. This
approach is well recognized and widely used in both social sciences and
management research studies. In the area of construction management,
many researchers have used this approach (Assaf et al, 1995; Chan et al,
1997; Odeh et al, 2000; Kartam et al, 2001; El-Dash et al, 2004; Assaf et al,
2006). Some of the advantages of mail questionnaire approaches are low
cost, greater anonymity, reduction in bias and wider geographic coverage.
Criteria for Risk Identification
In this research, “Criticality Index CI” is used as the criteria for identifying the critical risk factors. The degree of impact of each risk factor was included in the questionnaire under the heading “significance”. As
mentioned earlier, criticality of risk factor is assumed to be the combined
effect of probability (frequency of occurrence) and impact (significance) of
occurrence of the risk. Assaf et al, (1995) and Falqi, (2004) have used a
similar criterion. Both studies had used severity/significance of risk factors
and frequency of risk factors for evaluation of importance index as a
function of two attributes.
Survey Questionnaire
The questionnaire for the survey was designed with the main objective of identifying the most critical risks factors causing time-overrun in Kuwait’s
building and infrastructure projects. The preliminary questionnaire was
circulated among locally available experts in the field and their suggestions
with respect to contents, structure, and format were incorporated in the final
questionnaire. Questions Q.1 to Q.5 were factual questions, which elicit
Journal of Economic & Administrative Sciences December 2008
39
information from the respondents regarding their background, experience
and category and also the overall time-overrun risk exposure of construction
projects in Kuwait.
Questions for Identification of Critical Risk Factors: Thirty-three risk
factors causing time-overrun in construction projects were given in the
questionnaire and respondents were asked to indicate the significance of
each risk factor on a five point Likert scale, response scale ranging from “not
significant” (1) to “extremely significant” (5). The questionnaire was
designed to examine the respondent’s observation and judgment in
determining the relative significance of risk factors.
Although the degree of impact of risk factors varies from project to
project, the questions were designed to elicit a general assessment of the
significance of risk factors. The respondents were also asked about the
frequency of occurrence of that risk factor according to their judgment and
local working experience in Kuwait construction industry on a three point
Likert scale, response scale ranging from “low” (1) to “high” (3).
Survey Responses
In order to identify critical risk factors causing time-overrun in Kuwait’s building and infrastructure construction environment, a survey was carried
out among the various stakeholders: Government representatives, builder/
contractors, clients, consultants, project managers and architects. The survey
was administrated during the period August 2006 to October 2006. Since
the responses from clients, project managers and architects were very few in
numbers; their responses were clubbed with other categories. Clients and
project managers were included in contractor/ builder category whereas
architects were included in the consultant’s category.
Out of 100 questionnaires sent, 84 responses were received out of which
4 were incomplete and discarded. The response rate of 80 percent is
considered to be very good for this kind of a mail survey. The methodology
adopted for increasing the response rate was regular email and telephonic
follow-ups. The reliability of the survey results is expected to be high
because all the respondents are top-level experienced management officials in their organizations.
The summary of the survey responses concerning category and
experience is given in Table 2. The majority of the survey respondents were having very good experience in Kuwait’s construction environment. About
ninety four percent of the respondents have at least 10 years of experience in
the area construction projects.
Dr. Hassan Al Zubaiadi, Mr. Srour Al Otaibi December 2008
40
Table 2: Distribution of Respondents by Category and Experience
Category Experience in Construction Projects, in years Total
(%) > 20 15-19 10-14 5-9 < 5
Government Engineers
5
7
10
3
0 25
(31%)
Builders/ Contractors
17
7
3
1
0 28
(35%)
Consultants
21
5
0
0
1 27
(34%)
Total
(%)
43
(54%)
19
(24%)
13
(16%)
4
(5%)
1
(1%)
80
(100%)
Time-Over run in Kuwait’s Construction Projects Respondents of the survey were asked to evaluate the overall time-
overrun risk exposure of construction projects in Kuwait. The responses to
Q.4 “How often have time-overrun problems occurred in the projects you
have undertaken in Kuwait?” were statistically analyzed and summarized in
Table 3, which shows that the percentage of time-overrun in Kuwait’s
construction projects is ranging from 20-80%.
Table 3: Frequency of Time-overrun in Kuwait’s Construction Projects
Category
Percentage of Projects
< 20%
20-50%
50-80%
80-100%
Government
Engineers
3
10
12
0
Builders/
Contractors
11
8
7
2
Consultants 12 10 3 2
Total
(%)
26
(32.5)
28
(35)
22
(27.5)
4
(5)
About 93% of the respondents to Q.5 “Which type of construction
projects undertaken in Kuwait has had the highest case of time-overrun
problems?” stated that government projects executed in Kuwait have the
highest time-overrun problems. The remaining 6% mentioned private
developers’ projects.
Journal of Economic & Administrative Sciences December 2008
41
Identification of Critical Risk Factors The survey responses were stored in a database and the SPSS software
was used to perform the statistical analysis. For the purpose of this research
the responses were sorted based on category of respondents (Government
Engineers, Builders/Contractors and Consultants). Based on the significance
rating and frequency rating on each risk factor, the average score of the
Significance Index (SI) and Frequency Index (FI) was calculated for the
combined as well as for each category of respondents. The average scores of
SI and FI were calculated for each risk factor by the following formulae: 5 5
SI i 1 S i Pi / i 1 Pi (1)
3 3
FI j 1 F j P j / j 1 P j
where
Si is the significance weight (1, 2, 3, 4 or 5) assigned to option i
Pi is the number of participants who responded to option i Fj is the frequency weight (1, 2 or 3) assigned to option j Pj is the number of participants who responded to option j
(2)
The calculation of the criticality index (CI) was determined through two
steps; first, identifying the score for every possible answer as shown in the
Table 4.
Table 4: Significance-Frequency Combination Matrix
Significance (S)
Frequency (F)
1 2 3
1 1 2 3
2 2 4 6
3 3 6 8
4 4 7 10
5 5 9 11
Since the weight of significance was considered on a 5-point scale
whereas that of frequency was considered on a 3-point scale, the score of
integrating S and F will run from 1 to 11. The Criticality index (CI) for each
cause was calculated as follows: 15 15
CI k 1 ( S F )k Pk / k 1 Pk , (3)
where (S F )k is the conjunction (1, 2, …., or 11) in the matrix shown in
Table 4 and Pk is the number of participants who responded to option k.
Dr. Hassan Al Zubaiadi, Mr. Srour Al Otaibi December 2008
42
Based on the criticality rating of each category of respondents, the mean
criticality index was evaluated for each risk factor. Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) using the F-test was carried out to compare the mean criticality
rating among different categories of respondents (Mendenhall, 1971; Levin
and Rubin, 1998). In the ANOVA F-test, the samples are assumed to have
been randomly selected from the population in an independent manner. The
population is assumed to be normally distributed. Moderate departure from
these assumptions will not seriously affect the properties of the test
(Mendenhall, 1971).
Overall F-tests only determine whether any significant difference exists
among the means. For cases where the F-test is statistically significant, the
Post-Hoc Tukey HSD test was carried out. This test compares sets of two
means at a time in order to determine specifically, where the significant
difference lies. The Spearman’s rank correlation technique was also used to
compare the risk criticality ranking of the three different categories of
respondents. This technique is widely used in various psychological, socio-
economic and complex environmental problems to measure the association
between two ranked variables.
Identification of Critical Time-overrun Risk Factors: Survey Results
The mean criticality index (CI) for each time-overrun risk factor was calculated based on the rating given by the government engineers,
builders/contractors and consultants and are summarized in Appendix 2.
One-way ANOVA F-tests (2- tailed) were carried out for each risk factor
and showed that there was a high degree of agreement in risk criticality
rating (at 0.05 significance level) for the majority of the time-overrun risk
factors except TO.4 (Client induced additional work beyond the original
scope) and TO.27 (Inadequate design team experience). Post-Hoc Tukey
HSD tests were carried out for the TO.4 and TO.27 risk factors. The results
appear in Table 5, which reveals significant differences between Consultants
and Government Engineers. The criticality ratings of TO.4 and TO.27 risk
factors for Consultants were lower in comparison to others.
The high degree of agreement on risk factor criticality rating and ranking (except two risk factors) shows that the respondents have a common
understanding of the risks in Kuwait construction project environment and
the reliability of their ratings are likely to be high. Since the criticality rating
of different categories of respondents were not significantly different for
thirty one risk factors out of thirty three, the critical time-overrun risk factors
for Kuwait were identified based on the combined rating of all categories.
The risk ranking based on criticality index (CI) is given in Appendix 3.
Journal of Economic & Administrative Sciences December 2008
43
Risk
Factor
Dependent Variables
Mean
diff.
Std.
Error
Significance
(I) (J) TO.4 Consultants Contractors/Builders 3.11 1.14 0.021*
Consultants Govt. Engineers 3.39 1.17 0.013*
Govt. Engineers Builders/Contractors 0.28 1.16 0.969
TO.27 Consultants Builders/Contractors 1.70 1.13 0.296
Consultants Govt. Engineers 3.82 1.17 0.004*
Govt. Engineers Builders/Contractors 2.12 1.16 0.66
* S
Table 5: Multiple Comparisons (Tukey HSD)
ignificant at the 0.05 level
There is also a high correlation among different categories of respondents
in overall ranking of different risk factors. The spearman’s rank correlation
for risk factor criticality is also considered. The results show that there is
relatively good agreement between each two categories in ranking time-
overrun risk factors with the highest degree of agreement (0.87) between
Government Engineers and consultants, while the lowest degree of
agreement is between Builders and consultants (0.81). Such a relatively high
agreement demonstrates the reliability of the results.
Based on the risk criticality index analysis, most critical time-overrun risk
factors in Kuwait’s construction projects identified are given in Table 6,
which also gives the results of similar analyses for significance as well as
frequency of occurrence of critical risk factors in Kuwait.
The five highest rankings are “Delay in government approvals/permits
related to project”, “Delay in preparation and approval in variation orders”,
“Client induced additional work beyond the original scope”, “Changed engineering conditions from the contract document”, “Decreased labor
productivity due to extreme climatic conditions”. Among these five most
critical time-overrun risk factors, the values of the criticality index (CI) of
first three risk factors are around 8-8.75 whereas the values for the fourth
and fifth factors are around 6.5. Since the highest possible criticality index in
the adopted scale is 11, the range 6 to 8.75 can be treated as moderately to
very critical risk factors. None of the time-overrun risk factors are in the
range of extremely critical in Kuwait. The values of the relative criticality
index for the five most critical risk factors are shown in Figure 1.
Dr. Hassan Al Zubaiadi, Mr. Srour Al Otaibi December 2008
44
Table 6: The Most Critical Time-overrun Risk Factors in Kuwait Risk
Factor No.
Risk Factor Significance
Rank
Frequency
Rank
Criticality
Rank
TO.29 Delay in Government
approvals/permits related
to project
1
1
1
TO.11 Delay in preparation and approval in variation
orders
2
2
2
TO.4 Client induced additional work beyond the original
scope
3
3
3
TO.2 Changed engineering
conditions from the
contract document
4
4
4
TO.30 Decreased labor productivity due to
extreme climatic
conditions
5
5
5
Figure 1: Criticality Index of Most Critical Time-overrun Risk Factors
The most critical problem identified is “Delay in government
approvals/permits related to project”. This is a global problem especially for
Journal of Economic & Administrative Sciences December 2008
45
infrastructure construction projects. Depending on the type of projects, the
clearance/approval required from government agencies can adversely affect
the completion time. Careful observations of most critical time-overrun risk
factors reveal that all project stakeholders are equally responsible for project
delay. Government delay, delay in variation orders, additional works beyond
scope are client induced risk factors. Contractors with proper planning and
scheduling can better address problems related to change engineering
condition and labor productivity issues. Though earlier studies in some other
Middle East counties and Kuwait identified that delayed payment and
working capital shortage is a potential reason for time-overrun, such
problems are not very critical in Kuwait now. The survey result reveals that
“social and cultural problems (TO.24)” and “Accidents during construction
(TO.25)” are the least critical time-overrun factors in Kuwait.
Risk Factors Identification - Case Study Approach
In order to continue the survey based criticality assessment, twenty eight
infrastructure and Building projects executed in Kuwait were studied for
actual time-overrun occurrence and the major contributing risk factors. The
case study analysis revealed that 23 out of the 28 projects had time-overrun
problems. The case study results substantiated the survey findings of
frequent time problems of Kuwait’s building and infrastructure projects. The
average time-overrun in Kuwait’s projects (calculated from the case study) is
38%. In case of Management & Operation of Um-El haiman STP project,
the time-overrun recorded was 174%, which is the maximum among all
projects studied.
One of the main objectives of the case study research was to check how
far the critical risk factors (identified through the survey research) have
adversely affected the projects. The percentages of projects incurring time-
overrun with their critical risk factors are summarized in Table 7.
The most critical time-overrun factors like “delay in government
approvals/permits related to project (TO.29)”, “delay in preparation and
approval in variation orders (TO.11)”, “client induced additional work
beyond the original scope (TO.4)” and “changed engineering conditions
from the contract document (TO.2)” were major time-overrun reasons for the
majority of projects. More than 65% of projects had time-overrun due to
above problems. However, in contrary to the survey results, “decreased labor
productivity due to extreme climatic conditions (TO.30)” was not a major
time-overrun issue in Kuwait. Only 9% of projects studied had extreme
climatic conditions as a reason for delay. “Third party delays (TO.33)” and
Dr. Hassan Al Zubaiadi, Mr. Srour Al Otaibi December 2008
46
“insufficient information of constructability (TO.3)” have delayed about
30% and 39% of the projects.
Table 7: Occurrence of Time- overrun Risk Factors in Kuwait’s
Projects
Time-overrun Risk Factors % of projects
incurring
Time-overrun
Delay in Government approvals/permits related to project 78
Delay in preparation and approval in variation orders 74
Client induced additional work beyond the original scope 87
Changed engineering conditions from the contract document 65
Decreased labor productivity due to extreme climatic conditions 9
Third party delays * 39
Insufficient information of constructability * 30
* Additional critical risk factors
Conclusions
In comparison to private and corporate body projects, government
projects executed in Kuwait have the highest time-overrun problems. On an
average, about 20-50% projects executed in Kuwait have time-overrun
problems. There is a high degree of agreement on criticality ratings among various
respondents for all risk factors causing time-overrun in construction projects
executed in Kuwait. There is a significant difference in risk criticality rating between the government engineers and the consultants with respect to two
time-overrun risk factors: “Client induced additional work beyond the
original scope” and “Inadequate design team experience”.
The five most critical time-overrun risk factors in Kuwait’s construction
projects are: “Delay in Government approvals/permits related to project”,
“Delay in preparation and approval in variation orders”, “Client induced
additional work beyond the original scope”, “Changed engineering
conditions from the contract document”, and “Decreased labor productivity
due to extreme climatic conditions”.
Client induced additional work beyond the original scope and subsequent
design changes can lead to time-overrun and in turn cost-overrun. Such risk factors will ultimately end up in aggressive claims by the contractor.
All the short-listed time-overrun risk factors can be treated as moderately
critical to very critical risk factors. None of the time-overrun risk factors is
in the range of extremely critical in Kuwait.
Journal of Economic & Administrative Sciences December 2008
47
There was a fair degree of agreement between survey based risk
assessment and the actual risk impact in construction projects examined
through the case study. The average time-overrun in Kuwait’s project
(calculated from the case study) is 38%.
Limitations & Scope for Further Work
The scope of the present work was limited to specific risks, i.e., time- overrun risks. The research can be extended for other construction related risk categories like cost-overrun, political risks, legal risks, financial risk,
etc. The risk identification study carried out for building and infrastructure
projects in Kuwait can be extended and or focused on specific infrastructure
sectors like power, ports, telecommunication, etc.
Dr. Hassan Al Zubaiadi, Mr. Srour Al Otaibi December 2008
48
References Aibinu, A. A. and Jagboro, G. O (2002) “The Effects of Construction Delays
on Project Delivery in Nigerian Construction Industry”, International
Journal of Project Management, 20, 593-599.
Al-Bahar, J. F. (1989) “Risk Management in Construction Projects: A
Systemic Analytical Approach for Contractors”, PhD Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, 1989.
Al-Sabah, S. J, S. M. Fereig and D. J. Hoare (2002) “Construction Claims:
Result from Major Tribunal Findings in Kuwait”, The journal of
Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, 68 (1), February. Assef, S.A. and S. Al-Hejji (2006) “Causes of Delay in Large Construction
Projects”, International Journal of Project Management, 24, 349-357. Assaf, S.
A., M. Al-Khalil, and Al-Hazmi (1995) “Causes of Delay in Large
Construction Building Projects”, Journal of Management in Engineering,
March-April, 45-50.
Chan, D. W. M. and M. M. Kumaraswamy (1997) “A Comparative Study of Causes of Time-overrun in Hong Kong Construction Projects”,
International Journal of Project Management, 15(1), 55-63.
Chapman, C. B. and D. F. Cooper (1983) “Risk analysis: testing some
prejudices”. European Journal of Operational Research, 14, 238-247. EI- Dadh, K. and M. A. Monem (2004) “Potential Risks in Civil
Infrastructure Projects in Egypt”. Proceedings of III IPMA-ICEC
International Expert Seminar, Bilbao, Spain, 6-8 October 2004.
Falki, I. I. (2004) “Delay in Project Completion: A Comparative Study of
Construction Delay Factors in Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom”. Master Thesis, Heriot-Watt University.
Kartam, N. A. and S. A. Kartam (2001) “Risk and its management in the
Kuwaiti Construction Industry: a Contractors Perspective, Project Management”, International Journal of Project Management, 19, 325-
335.
Koushki, P. A. and K. Al Rashid , N. Kartam (2005) “Delays and cost
increases in the construction of private residential projects in Kuwait”,
Construction Management & Economics, Volume 23, Number 3.
Kuwait Economic and Strategic Outlook-VIII (2005), Global Investment
House (KSCC), December. Levin, I. R. and D. S. Rubin (1998) “Data Analysis for Management”,
Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 1998.
Mendenhall, W. (1971) “Introduction to Probability and Statistics” (3rd
Ed.),
Duxbury Press, Belmount, California , 1971.
Journal of Economic & Administrative Sciences December 2008
49
Odeh, A. M. and H. T Battaineh (2002) “Causes of Construction Delays:
Traditional Contracts”, International Journal of Project Management, 20,
67-73.
Perry, J. G. and R. W. Hayes (1985) “Risk and its management in
construction projects.” Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineering, 78(1), 499-521.
RAMP. (2000) “Risk Analysis and Management of Projects”, Thomas Telford Publishing, London, 2000.
Thomas, A. V., S. N. Kalidindi and L. S. Ganesh (2006) “Modelling and
Assessment of Critical Risks in BOT Road Projects.” Construction Management and Economics, 24, 407-424.
Wideman, R. M. (1986) “Risk management”. Project Management Journal, 9, 20-26
Dr. Hassan Al Zubaiadi, Mr. Srour Al Otaibi December 2008
50
Appendix 1: Risk Factors Causing Time-Overrun
Risk
Factor No.
Time-overrun Risk factors
TO.1 Unrealistic design development periods
TO.2 Changed engineering conditions from the contract document
TO.3 Insufficient information of constructability
TO.4 Client induced additional work beyond the original scope
TO.5 Rework due to errors/omissions during construction (quantity & quality)
TO.6 Error in the estimated activity completion time
TO.7 Noncompliance with conditions of contract
TO.8 Delay in contractors payment of completing work
TO.9 Consultant/Engineer driven frequent changes in design and materials
TO.10 Lack of co-ordination between design team and contractor
TO.11 Delay in preparation and approval in variation orders
TO.12 Unplanned Maintenance of Plant & Machinery
TO.13 Lack of construction experience of client
TO.14 Capacity problem of Contractor (handling many sites at a time)
TO.15 Shortage and slow delivery of construction materials
TO.16 Shortage of skilled labour in Kuwait
TO.17 Working capital shortage of contractor
TO.18 Selection of improper project delivery system (Design-build/turnkey…)
TO.19 Shortage of utilities at site
TO.20 Conflict between Contractor and subcontractors
TO.21 Joint ownership problems of project
TO.22 Improper scheduling/sequencing of project
TO.23 Legal disputes between project participants
TO.24 Social and cultural problems
TO.25 Accidents during construction
TO.26 Inappropriate organizational structure to link project participants
TO.27 Inadequate design team experience
TO.28 Periodic regulatory changes
TO.29 Delay in Government approvals/permits related to project
TO.30 Decreased labor productivity due to extreme climatic conditions
TO.31 Inadequate contractor experience
TO.32 Change in standards and specifications
TO.33 Third party delays
Journal of Economic & Administrative Sciences December 2008
51
Appendix 2: Risk Factor Criticality Rating for Time-Overruns
Risk
Factors
Government Engineers
Builders/ Contractors
Consultants
ANOVA
Combined
CI SD CI SD CI SD F Sig. CI SD
TO.1 7.20 4.11 6.32 2.98 5.78 2.91 1.18 0.31 6.41 3.36
TO.2 8.08 5.07 6.18 4.24 5.48 4.60 2.17 0.12 6.54 4.70
TO.3 6.44 3.75 6.14 4.41 4.11 3.12 2.95 0.06 5.55 3.90
TO.4 9.24 4.22 8.96 4.37 5.85 4.04 5.33 0.01* 8.00 4.44
TO.5 5.36 3.72 4.43 3.23 4.26 3.81 0.70 0.50 4.66 3.57
TO.6 6.64 4.40 5.46 4.10 5.22 4.17 0.83 0.44 5.75 4.21
TO.7 6.32 3.65 4.71 3.23 4.11 2.79 3.22 0.05 5.01 3.32
TO.8 5.20 4.10 4.61 3.36 4.07 4.03 0.56 0.57 4.61 3.81
TO.9 4.72 4.26 4.86 3.97 3.19 3.21 1.58 0.21 4.25 3.86
TO.10 6.40 4.22 6.18 4.44 4.81 4.02 1.09 0.34 5.79 4.24
TO.11 9.08 4.29 9.25 4.46 7.04 4.30 2.16 0.12 8.45 4.42
TO.12 4.68 3.70 3.00 2.39 3.37 2.57 2.38 0.10 3.65 2.97
TO.13 6.04 4.38 4.07 3.21 4.93 3.91 1.74 0.18 4.98 3.88
TO.14 6.56 4.05 4.61 3.30 5.30 4.33 1.68 0.19 5.45 3.94
TO.15 5.80 4.07 5.14 3.44 4.37 3.54 0.98 0.38 5.09 3.68
TO.16 6.84 5.19 4.89 3.90 5.37 4.40 1.32 0.27 5.66 4.52
TO.17 5.32 4.48 4.57 3.54 3.96 3.46 0.81 0.45 4.60 3.82
TO.18 3.72 3.23 3.71 2.57 3.67 2.47 0.00 1.00 3.70 2.73
TO.19 3.44 3.08 3.11 2.36 3.89 3.50 0.47 0.63 3.48 2.99
TO.20 6.68 4.71 4.18 3.40 5.30 4.45 2.34 0.10 5.34 4.28
TO.21 6.00 4.57 4.14 2.99 4.26 3.40 2.06 0.13 4.76 3.73
TO.22 7.28 3.39 6.04 3.49 5.15 3.03 2.71 0.07 6.13 3.38
TO.23 4.56 3.87 3.11 1.99 3.41 2.58 1.84 0.17 3.66 2.91
TO.24 2.00 1.47 1.82 1.12 1.67 0.88 0.52 0.59 1.83 1.17
TO.25 3.00 2.89 2.29 1.38 2.78 2.47 0.67 0.51 2.68 2.30
TO.26 4.52 3.69 4.36 3.14 3.48 2.91 0.78 0.46 4.11 3.24
TO.27 8.12 4.85 6.00 3.93 4.30 3.82 5.37 0.01* 6.09 4.43
TO.28 3.92 2.98 4.00 2.80 3.33 2.90 0.43 0.65 3.75 2.87
TO.29 9.64 3.68 8.07 3.98 8.67 4.12 1.06 0.35 8.76 3.94
TO.30 6.32 3.29 6.32 3.17 6.74 4.18 0.12 0.88 6.46 3.54
TO.31 7.20 4.19 6.00 3.70 5.74 3.13 1.15 0.32 6.29 3.69
TO.32 5.24 4.22 3.71 2.65 3.00 2.79 3.18 0.05 3.95 3.35
TO.33 5.32 3.46 4.71 3.47 4.96 4.37 0.17 0.84 4.99 3.76
* Significant at the 0.05 level
SD: Standard Deviation
Dr. Hassan Al Zubaiadi, Mr. Srour Al Otaibi December 2008
52
Appendix 3: Time-overrun Risk Factors’ Ranking Based on Criticality
Risk Factors
Government Eng. Builders/Contractors Consultants Combined
CI Rank CI Rank CI Rank CI Rank
TO.1 7.20 7 6.32 4 5.78 5 6.41 6
TO.2 8.08 5 6.18 6 5.48 7 6.54 4
TO.3 6.44 13 6.14 8 4.11 20 5.55 13
TO.4 9.24 2 8.96 2 5.85 4 8.00 3
TO.5 5.36 20 4.43 21 4.26 18 4.66 21
TO.6 6.64 11 5.46 12 5.22 11 5.75 11
TO.7 6.32 15 4.71 16 4.11 21 5.01 17
TO.8 5.20 24 4.61 18 4.07 22 4.61 22
TO.9 4.72 25 4.86 15 3.19 30 4.25 24
TO.10 6.40 14 6.18 7 4.81 15 5.79 10
TO.11 9.08 3 9.25 1 7.04 2 8.45 2
TO.12 4.68 26 3.00 31 3.37 28 3.65 30
TO.13 6.04 17 4.07 25 4.93 14 4.98 19
TO.14 6.56 12 4.61 19 5.30 9 5.45 14
TO.15 5.80 19 5.14 13 4.37 16 5.09 16
TO.16 6.84 9 4.89 14 5.37 8 5.66 12
TO.17 5.32 21 4.57 20 3.96 23 4.60 23
TO.18 3.72 30 3.71 27 3.67 25 3.70 28
TO.19 3.44 31 3.11 29 3.89 24 3.48 31
TO.20 6.68 10 4.18 23 5.30 10 5.34 15
TO.21 6.00 18 4.14 24 4.26 19 4.76 20
TO.22 7.28 6 6.04 9 5.15 12 6.13 8
TO.23 4.56 27 3.11 30 3.41 27 3.66 29
TO.24 2.00 33 1.82 33 1.67 33 1.83 33
TO.25 3.00 32 2.29 32 2.78 32 2.68 32
TO.26 4.52 28 4.36 22 3.48 26 4.11 25
TO.27 8.12 4 6.00 10 4.30 17 6.09 9
TO.28 3.92 29 4.00 26 3.33 29 3.75 27
TO.29 9.64 1 8.07 3 8.67 1 8.76 1
TO.30 6.32 16 6.32 5 6.74 3 6.46 5
TO.31 7.20 8 6.00 11 5.74 6 6.29 7
TO.32 5.24 23 3.71 28 3.00 31 3.95 26
TO.33 5.32 22 4.71 17 4.96 13 4.99 18
Journal of Economic & Administrative Sciences December 2008
53
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
top related