EVALUATING THE QUALITY CONTROL RELATED FACTORS TO ...€¦ · DEFECTS IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN...
Transcript of EVALUATING THE QUALITY CONTROL RELATED FACTORS TO ...€¦ · DEFECTS IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN...
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 923 [email protected]
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)
Volume 9, Issue 6, June 2018, pp. 923–937, Article ID: IJCIET_09_06_105
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=6
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316
© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed
EVALUATING THE QUALITY CONTROL
RELATED FACTORS TO ENGINEERING
DEFECTS IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
IN JORDAN
Dr. Faidhi A-R S Alubaid
Associate Professor, Isra Unv., Amman, Jordan
Dr. Rami H F Alhadeethi
Associate Professor, Jordan Unv., Amman, Jordan
M. Eng. Ala J Alnajjar
Civil Engineering, Amman, Jordan
ABSTRACT
Construction projects play a vital role in the development of Jordan. Quality
control performance is one of the important features in all projects successes.
Problems occur frequently during construction projects life-time leading to disputes,
delays and litigations. Therefor it is essential to study and analyze all quality control
related factors and it is association with engineering defects. This research identifies
nine of these factors that have the greatest impact to arise. Subsequently, a
questionnaire survey was presented into 79 question. The questionnaire survey was
distributed to 196 specialist engineers represent a selected sample from the Jordanian
Engineers Association. Statistical analysis was carried out by employing the (SPSS)
program. Data related the quality control factors and that’s effects the engineering
defects were analyzed and discussed in details.
Key words: Construction projects management; Quality control; Engineering defects;
Statistical analysis.
Cite this Article: Dr. Faidhi A-R S Alubaid, Dr. Rami H F Alhadeethi and M.Eng.
Ala J Alnajjar, Evaluating the Quality Control Related Factors to Engineering Defects
in Construction Projects in Jordan, International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology, 9(6), 2018, pp. 923–937
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=6
1. INTRODUCTION
Due to the growth and development of the construction industry in Jordan considered the
most important sector in the economy, it has a significant effect on the efficiency and
development of other businesses. Construction projects are full of problems, and most of
Evaluating the Quality Control Related Factors to Engineering Defects in Construction Projects in Jordan
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 924 [email protected]
these problems are severe and need powerful and suitable methods to overcome or at least
reduce their consequences. There are many factors affecting construction quality, such as
design, time, cost, teamwork, communication, safety, monitoring, documents availability and
administrative. Because of the fixed project location, large volume and different projects
environments, poor control of these factors will produce quality problems. During controlling
the whole process of construction, only accord with the required quality standards and user
promising requirements, fulfilling quality, time, cost, etc., construction process could get the
best economic effects.
This study is created in associate with the research carried by AlNajjar [1] and the
objectives are set to fulfill; First Identifying the relationship between all quality control
related factors and engineering defects, and determining the factors that have the greatest
impact to arise the engineering defects in construction projects. Second Clarifying the most
common engineering defects resulting from misapplication of the quality control related
factors in construction projects in Jordan.
2. LIERATURE REVIEW
Various literatures related to the projects are reviewed. Some researchers have studied the
reasons of and the factors affecting cost overrun, time delay, quality management, quality
performance, workman ship, and conflicts in construction projects in many countries.
However, there are a lack of studies concerned with the quality control related factors and
engineering defects in construction projects in Jordan. Al-Hazim, AbuSalem & Ahmad [2]
investigate the factors that may cause overrun of the planned cost, allocated resources and
scheduled time of infrastructure engineering projects in Jordan. The analysis showed that
delay and cost overrun of infrastructure projects were caused by 20 factors according to the
records in the collected final reports of projects. The results showed that Terrain and Weather
conditions are the top factors causing completion delay and cost overrun in infrastructure
projects in Jordan.
Aziz [3] identified the factors causing cost variation for constructing wastewater projects
in Egypt. The most cost variation can also be made by the owner due to additional work;
while the less effect factor identified by the obtained results is authority of construction
industry by foreign firms and aids is related to ‘‘Miscellaneous Category’’.
Alhomidan [4] identified factors affecting cost overrun in road construction projects in
Saudi Arabia from contractors’ viewpoint. The most severe factors are; internal administrative
problems, payments delay, poor communication between construction parties, and delays in
decision making. The results showed that most of the critical factors are managerial factors
that could be controlled and minimized by improving the managerial skills of the construction
teams by conducting proper trainings and workshops.
Marzouk & El-Rasas [5] analyzed causes of construction delays in Egypt. The feedback of
construction experts was obtained through interviews and questionnaire. Surveys was
distributed to thirty-three construction experts who represent owners, consultants, and
contractor’s organizations. Frequency Index, Severity Index, and Importance Index are
calculated and according to the highest values of them the top ten delay causes of construction
projects in Egypt are determined.
Gebrehiwet & Luo [6] investigates the typical causes of delay at different stages of
construction and its effect in the Ethiopian construction projects. The critical effects of delay
investigated are cost overruns, time overrun, termination of contract, arbitration, and litigation
sequentially.
Dr. Faidhi A-R S Alubaid, Dr. Rami H F Alhadeethi and M.Eng. Ala J Alnajjar
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 925 [email protected]
Gluszak & Lesniak [7]. aimed at identifying the most important causes of delays in
construction works in Poland from the client’s perspective. Factor analysis helped to
distinguish three main latent factors first, involving activities and neglect, second associated
with investor problems and third connected with external circumstances on which the parties
of the contract have a limited or no influence.
Elawia, Algahtanyb & Kashiwagic [8] identifies the main causes of delay in infrastructure
projects in Mecca. Average delay in infrastructure projects in Mecca was found to be 39%.
The most severe cause of delay was found to be the land acquisition factor. Additionally,
other factors that contribute to delay include contractors’ lack of expertise, re-designing, and
haphazard underground utilities.
Kikwasi [9] concluded that a number of delay causes and disruptions, which put the
construction projects in Tanzania at a great risk, have an effect on their performance. These
causes are: design changes, delays in payment to contractors, information delays, funding
problems, poor project management, compensation issues, multiple projects by contractors
and disagreement on the valuation of work done. Sambasivan & Soon[10] added to those
causes in Malaysia; subcontractor problems, shortage in materials, labor supply and
equipment availability.
Shobana & Ambika [11] focuses in their study on identifying and scrutinizing the factors
that affects construction quality in India. The study revealed that the significant factors are
occurrence of meeting, environmental risks, working hours, material delay, and labor
shortage, coordination, checking inventory level, resource delay, coordination and safety
precautions. Majorly it can be categorized under labor and material related factors. In
construction, labors and materials are to be focused in order to improve productivity which
greatly increases quality. Environmental risks
cannot be predicted in construction but the works can be preplanned according to the
present climatic conditions.
Al-Adhmawi & Al-Ani [12] illustrated that constructing companies in Jordan still suffer
from the lack of a system of site quality management. Through interviewing the managers and
the constructors, the researchers have concluded that there is a misunderstanding of the
concept of quality management and the poor level of techniques used in construction industry
and its application in the construction industry; the managers indicated that the main two
reasons of quality faults are: the lack of proper building materials.
Abu Shaban & Saleh Samir [13] categorized the main practical problems of projects
performance in the Gaza Strip, the most important factors agreed by the owners, consultants
and contractors as the main factors affecting the performance of construction projects were
escalation of material prices, availability of resources as planned through project duration,
average delay because of closures and materials shortage and leadership skills for project
manager.
Iyer & Jha [14] determine the critical factors affecting quality performance in construction
projects in Indian. They concluded that the project manager’s competence, top management
support and their competence, interaction between project participants, owners competence,
monitoring and feedback by project participants are the factors which have a positive
contributions to achieve the desired quality level, while factors such as conflict among project
participants, climatic condition, lack of knowledge, some project specific factors and
aggressive competition at the tender stage are found to adversely affect the quality
performances of projects.
Evaluating the Quality Control Related Factors to Engineering Defects in Construction Projects in Jordan
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 926 [email protected]
Akhavan & etl. [15] founded that 42% of workforces in the respondents’ firms in Africa
were unskilled, in addition, most of the companies encountered with damages by assigning
the works to inexperienced workers. The study revealed that workers’ participation,
recognition, awards, promotions, financial incentives are profitable methods of motivating the
employees for training.
Ali & Wen [16] suggested that the factors that contribute to poor workmanship in
Malaysia include: poor project management, complicated role of subcontractor, lack of
experience and competency of labors, language obstacle to communicate and lack of
communication, unsuitable of construction equipment, poor weather condition and limited
time and cost.
Jaffar & etl. [17] significantly overviewed that conflict would arise due to behavioral
problems such as poor communication among project team, multicultural team problem and
unprepared to check for constructability, clarity and completeness of project. Conflict also
arises due to the factors of contractual problem which includes delay temporary payment from
owner; client fails to respond in timely manner, application of extension of time and improper
project schedules. Other than that, contractor's quality of work, error of pricing or costing, late
instructions from architect or engineer also considered as factors of conflict which is due to
technical problems.
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Achieving the objective of this research is maintained by designing a questionnaire
establishing sample size, validity content, pilot study, reliability and analyzing and discussing
the data which were collected by questionnaire using SPSS program, and the relationship
between quality control factors and defects that are determined. The questionnaire was
designed in four stages, Initial questionnaire list, expert review, pilot questionnaire, and final
questionnaire list. The questionnaire final form was finalized for utilize in the survey,
comprised demographic information presented into 70 question and grouped to nine
categories related to quality control factors see Table-5. Nine question concern with
engineering defects factors presented in Table-7. The five Likert scales which is the
procedure that used in answering the questions in the questionnaires to obtain participant’s
preferences or degree of agreement with a statement or set of statements according to the
importance of each item as shown in Table-1.
Table 1 Degree of Importance:
Category Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
Scale 5 4 3 2 1
The population for this research consists of civil, architecture, mechanical, and electrical
engineers who have a valid registration at the Jordanian Engineers Association in Jordan.
There is an over fifty thousand engineers in Jordan, the researcher focused on investigating a
small sample to generalize the results to the entire sample. The selection of the research
sample was based on selecting population size from engineers with minimum experience of
10 years. The size of the sample required from the target population was determine according
to Israel [18];
,
Dr. Faidhi A-R S Alubaid, Dr. Rami H F Alhadeethi and M.Eng. Ala J Alnajjar
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 927 [email protected]
where; m the Sample size. n the Correction sample size for limited population. N the
Population. Z the Value related with confidence level (1.96 for 95% confidence level). P the
Degree of variance between the elements of population (0.5). ε the Maximum error (0.07).
Over 200 questionnaire forms were distributed, 196 were responded, weight for each
engineer's specialist is shown in the following Table-2.
Table 2 Weight for Engineers Specialist:
Engineer specialist Percent Related to the total The sample size number
Civil Engineers 45.0% 88
Architecture Engineers 26.5% 52
Mechanical Engineers 16.2% 32
Electrical Engineers 12.3% 24
Total 100% 196
4. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:
Qualitative and quantitative data analysis methods were used to analyze the data; it was
carried out by employing the (SPSS) program.
4.1. Reliability Analysis:
Measures the consistency over time and over similar samples expectedly, a reliable instrument
for a piece of research should produce same data from similar respondents over time; George
and Mallery [19]. Cronbach's coefficient (α) was calculated to estimate the internal
consistency of reliability of a measurement scale. Normally ranges between 0 and 1.0, the
closer cronbach’s alpha coefficient is to 1.0 the greater the internal consistency of the items in
the scale, based upon the following Equation;
Where; K the number of questions. the summation of standard variation square.
the square of total standard variation. The limitations of α where classified in Table-3.
Table 3 Cronbach’s alpha coefficient limitations:
Criteria Excellent Good Acceptable Questionable Poor Unacceptable
Cronbach's
Alpha
(α) > 0.9 0.9 - 0.8 0.8 - 0.7 0.7 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.5 (α) < 0.5
The draft of the questionnaires was presented to 25 expertise in academic and practical
fields, to assess the clarity and comprehensiveness of each statement and how it is related to
the elements that are need to be measured.
Table-4 shows the values of reliability concerning the quality control factors in
construction projects. The overall (questionnaire) reliability value was (0.870), and these
values reflect a good reliability indication.
Evaluating the Quality Control Related Factors to Engineering Defects in Construction Projects in Jordan
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 928 [email protected]
Table 4 Questioner Reliability:
No. Quality Control Factors No. of
Items Reliability
1 Design Related Defects 8 0.902
2 Time Related Defects 10 0.705
3 Cost Related Defects 9 0.877
4 Team Work Related Defects 10 0.720
5 Communications and Contact Related defects 5 0.795
6 Occupational and Safety Related defects 6 0.879
7 Documents and information availability related
defects 7 0.859
8 Monitoring Related Defects 9 0.755
9 Administrative Related Defects 6 0.879
Total Quality Control 70 0.870
4.2. Data Analysis for Quality Control Factors
The values of means, standard deviations and skewness was calculated following MacMillan
[20] and relative importance index after Iyer & Jha [21].
Where; fi the number of respondents who answer the ith option. Xi the weight that
assigned to ith option. n the total number of respondents.
Standard Deviation, sd=√
Where; xi the weight that assigned to i th option. the mean value. n the total number of
respondents.
Skewness, g =
Where; the number of respondents who answer the th option. the weight that
assigned to th option. the mean value. the standard deviation. the total number of
respondents.
Relative Importance Index, RII =
Where; W the weight given to each factor by the respondents (ranging from 1 to 5).
A the highest weight (i.e. 5 in this case). N the total number of respondents.
All the statistical analysis data for Q.C. Factors are presented in Table-5:
Dr. Faidhi A-R S Alubaid, Dr. Rami H F Alhadeethi and M.Eng. Ala J Alnajjar
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 929 [email protected]
Table 5 Quality Control Related Factors
No. 1-Design Related Factors Mean sd Sk RII
Ra
nk
1 Design is keeping pace with the modern style of
designs. 2.08 0.53 0.08 41.63 4
2 Design takes in to consideration the environmental and
geographical attitude for the project site. 2.11 0.59 -0.03 42.17 3
3 Designs are usually line and correspond with the
environmentally friendly design. 2.16 0.61 -0.11 43.26 2
4 Precise and accurate details are available for designs. 2.18 0.61 -0.10 43.59 1
5 Designs match and correspond to the engineering
codes. 1.96 0.58 0.00 39.13 7
6 Client party usually intervenes in designs. 1.95 0.57 -0.01 39.02 8
7 Design modifications are followed-up by the designer. 2.04 0.54 0.03 40.76 5
8 Designs correspond to various engineering disciplines
(civil, architecture, electrical and mechanical). 2.02 0.59 0.00 40.33 6
Total Design Related Factors 2.06 0.31 -0.87 41.24
No. 2-Time Related Factors Mean sd Sk RII Ra
nk
1 Project duration could be accurately and thoughtfully
determined. 3.26 1.00 -0.11 65.22 8
2 There is an enough required time for site mobilization. 3.35 0.85 -0.58 66.96 6
3 There are no delays in getting approval for work
implementation by the concerned authorities. 3.60 0.96 -0.69 72.07 3
4 The work is started after obtaining the licenses and
approvals directly. 3.58 0.85 -0.51 71.52 4
5
The work performance that required for work
completion is appropriate with the capacity of available
staff.
3.50 1.01 -0.52 70.00 5
6 Resources are available as planned and by the time of
the project plan. 3.27 0.94 -0.37 65.43 7
7
The time required for repair errors, defects and
implementation of change orders is estimated
accurately.
3.15 1.00 -0.18 63.04 10
8 The client not intervenes in determining the overall
project duration. 3.19 1.02 0.11 63.80 9
9
The contractor could perform more than one project in
the same time, which leads to delay the
accomplishment.
3.71 0.94 -0.65 74.13 1
10 There are delays in the completion of the project due to
weather conditions. 3.64 0.84 -0.71 72.72 2
Total Time Related Factors 3.42 0.50 -0.28 68.49
No. 3-Cost Related Factors Mean
sd Sk
RII Ra
nk
1 There is a realistic cost estimation of the project. 2.15 0.57 0.01 42.93 2
2 There is enough experience during bid pricing. 2.11 0.58 -0.02 42.28 3
3 The bid price is affected as a result of competition
between contractors. 1.90 0.59 0.02 37.93 7
4
There are laws and regulations that define and
determine the mechanism of payments between the
contractor and the owner.
1.93 0.56 -0.02 38.70 6
5 There are financial incentives aimed to improving the
quality of the work. 2.07 0.59 -0.02 41.41 5
6 There is an increase in the project cost resulting from
increasing the administrative expenses and overtime. 2.11 0.58 -0.02 42.28 4
7 There is an increase in the project cost due to the cost
of change orders and re-implementation of some work. 1.83 0.55 -0.09 36.52 9
8 There is an increase in the project cost resulting from 1.86 0.59 0.04 37.28 8
Evaluating the Quality Control Related Factors to Engineering Defects in Construction Projects in Jordan
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 930 [email protected]
the increase in fuel prices, the prices of materials and
increasing the proportion of losses.
9 There is an increase in the project cost resulting from
accidents work compensation. 2.29 0.63 -0.33 45.76 1
Total Cost Related Factors 2.03 0.31 -0.57 40.57
No. 4-Team Work Related Factors Mean Sd Sk RII Ra
nk
1 Necessary technical skills are available for workers and
supervisors. 2.16 0.51 0.22 43.15 9
2 The staffs possess spirit teamwork. 2.29 0.59 -0.19 45.87 2
3 There is enough knowledge for staff related to
requirements and work specifications. 2.26 0.55 0.04 45.22 4
4 The project manager has good leadership skills. 2.20 0.59 -0.08 44.02 7
5 The relationship between the staff and project manager
is based on cooperation and respect. 2.23 0.60 -0.13 44.67 5
6 The spirit of competition and belonging among
employees is increased. 2.30 0.60 -0.22 46.09 1
7 There is a specified fixed staff for the project. 2.12 0.54 0.09 42.39 10
8 There is an exact determine for the job description for
staff (the tasks entrusted to him). 2.18 0.63 -0.16 43.70 8
9
There is an exchange of experiences and technical
executive with the institutions of friction and take
advantage of other experiences.
2.29 0.63 -0.33 45.76 3
10 Human resources are trained with new skills necessary
for the project. 2.23 0.60 -0.16 44.67 6
Total Team Worker Related Factors 2.23 0.34 -0.20 44.55
No. 5-Communications and Contact Related Factors Mean Sd Sk RII Ra
nk
1
There is sufficient communication between all project
parties (the owner, contractor, designer) during the
various project phases.
3.65 0.89 -0.82 72.93 1
2 There is streamline to deliver information between all
project parties. 3.29 0.89 -0.57 65.87 3
3 There is an urge to use the latest communication
systems and techniques. 3.18 0.98 -0.38 63.70 4
4
All reports and orders are transferred by modern
techniques to ensure speed and accuracy instead of
paper correspondence.
3.05 1.09 -0.13 61.09 5
5
All correspondence and communications among the
project
Parties are documented.
3.64 0.93 -0.81 72.72 2
Total Communications & Contact Related Factors 3.36 0.74 -0.61 67.26
No. 6-Occupational and Safety Related Factors Mean Sd Sk RII Ra
nk
1
There is an interest in projects' conditions and
providing required occupational safety tools for
workers.
2.98 1.01 -0.22 59.57 4
2 Safety and security procedures are used in the project. 2.96 0.97 -0.14 59.24 5
3 There is an appropriate safety standard for the work
environment. 3.05 0.90 -0.05 60.98 3
4 Climatic conditions are taken into account within the
projects' environment. 3.20 0.88 -0.20 63.91 1
5 Health insurance against accidents at work for all
employees is available. 3.18 1.01 -0.31 63.70 2
6 There are previous recorded statistical rates related to
accidents in the projects. 2.75 0.93 0.15 55.00 6
Total Occupational & Safety Related Factors 3.02 0.79 -0.01 60.40
No. 7-Documents and Information Availability Related
Factors Mean Sd Sk RII
Ra
nk
Dr. Faidhi A-R S Alubaid, Dr. Rami H F Alhadeethi and M.Eng. Ala J Alnajjar
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 931 [email protected]
1 Contract documents are characterized with a high
degree of clarity. 3.45 0.89 -0.59 69.02 4
2 There is detailed documentation for specifications,
quantities and drawings. 3.73 0.89 -0.96 74.57 1
3 There is detailed documentation of legislation and
laws, contracts and agreements. 3.71 0.89 -0.98 74.24 2
4 Sufficient information for suppliers and subcontractors
are available. 3.23 0.87 -0.21 64.57 6
5 There is an obvious track (sequence) and a clear
workflow of information within the project. 3.29 0.82 -0.41 65.87 5
6 There is a possibility to reach the required information,
analyze and modify them directly. 3.21 0.86 -0.32 64.24 7
7 All work stages and work permits documentation is
available. 3.56 0.85 -0.83 71.20 3
Total Documents and Information Availability
Related Factors 3.45 0.67 -0.60 69.10
No. 8-Monitoring Related Factors Mean Sd Sk RII Ra
nk
1 There is an efficient and experience staff with the
ability to monitor the work in all its stages. 2.20 0.59 -0.06 43.91 9
2 There is an appropriate level of quality control
measures. 2.27 0.57 -0.07 45.33 4
3 Committees are formed to follow up the necessary
quality policies. 2.29 0.63 -0.30 45.76 2
4 A comprehensive system of quality at the local level is
formulated. 2.29 0.58 -0.13 45.76 3
5 Reform agencies staff of test department and the
adoption of qualified laboratories. 2.27 0.56 -0.04 45.43 5
6
There is a commitment to standards and agreed terms
and requirements of the Global System for quality
(ISO).
2.26 0.60 -0.17 45.22 6
7 There is a precise auditing on the engineering bureaus
by Jordanian engineering association. 2.21 0.63 -0.19 44.13 8
8 The faults and problems are reviewed then appropriate
solutions are developed. 2.24 0.59 -0.12 44.89 7
9 Raw materials that used in the project have a high
quality. 2.31 0.63 -0.36 46.20 1
Total Monitoring Related Factors 2.26 0.35 -0.38 45.18
No. 9-Administrative Related Factors Mean Sd Sk RII Ra
nk
1 An experienced supervision cadre that represents the
owner and designer of the project is existed. 2.18 0.57 -0.01 43.70 4
2
Powers and Permissions are allowed to the project
managers and enable them to make the necessary
technical decisions.
2.20 0.59 -0.08 44.02 3
3 Consultants are training to ensure the accuracy of the
engineering documents. 2.16 0.59 -0.05 43.26 5
4 A cost flow system is available to observe the conduct
of the project costs. 2.35 0.60 -0.33 47.07 1
5 Non-classified Contractors are adopted (or inadequate
rating). 2.16 0.59 -0.05 43.26 6
6 The mechanism of selection the contractors and
suppliers is improved 2.34 0.62 -0.37 46.85 2
Total Administrative related quality control 2.23 0.39 -0.23 44.69
The classifications for mean values in the upcoming Tables will be based on the following
criteria as suggested by researcher as shown in Table-6:
Evaluating the Quality Control Related Factors to Engineering Defects in Construction Projects in Jordan
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 932 [email protected]
Table 6 Mean values classification
Weak Moderate High
Mean Value < 3 3 ≤ Mean Value ≤ 4 Mean Value <4
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Based on the analysis data shown in Table-5 we discuss the results. First the discussions of
the factors effecting the quality control of construction projects in Jordan is carried out.
Second we discuss the results obtained by analyzing the factors effects the engineering
defects.
5.1. Data Analysis for All Quality Control Related Factors
The results in Table-5 shows that the overall mean value for design related factor is (weak)
and all values for the whole questions are considered (weak) due to the lack of commitment to
keep pace with the modern style of designs, not to take into consideration the environmental
and geographical attitude for the project site, inaccurate design details, non-compliance of
design to the engineering codes, lack of follow up the designers to design modifications, the
increasing of client's intervention in design proces and non-corresponding designs with
various engineering disciplines. This proves that there is a low importance of this factor as
addressed by the study sample.
The overall mean value for cost related factor is (weak) and all values for the whole sub
factors are considered (weak) too, that is due to the lack of realistic cost estimation of the
project, lack of sufficient experience during bid pricing, bid price is affected as a result of
competition between contractors. The absence of laws and regulations that define and
determine the mechanism of payments between the contractor and the owner, and an increase
in the project cost resulting from increasing the administrative expenses, increasing fuel
prices, increasing the prices of materials and increasing the proportion of losses. In general,
all data reflect that there was a low attention and implementation of cost factor.
The overall mean value for team work factor is (weak) and all values for the whole sub
factors are considered as (weak) too, that is because of poor technical skills for workers and
supervisors, lack of commitment to the spirit of team work, poor managers leadership, no
fixed staff for the project, insufficient recognition for staff related to requirements and work
specifications, insufficient exchange of experiences and technical executive with the
institutions of friction and take advantage of other experiences. In general, all data reflect that
there was a low interest of team work factor.
The overall mean value for monitoring factor is (weak), and all values for the whole sub
factors are considered as (weak) too, that is due to insufficient experience staff to monitor the
work in all project stages, low quality of raw materials that used in the project and inaccurate
auditing on the engineering bureaus by Jordanian Engineering Association. In general, all data
reflect that there was (weak)interest of monitoring factor.
The overall mean value for administrative factor is (weak) and all values for the whole sub
factors are considered as (weak) too, that is because of poor mechanism of selection the
contractors and suppliers and using non-classified contractors.
According to Table-5, the overall mean values for time, communications, safety and
documents and information factors are (moderate). This prove that there is a
(moderate)attention and implementation of these factors as addressed by the study samples.
Dr. Faidhi A-R S Alubaid, Dr. Rami H F Alhadeethi and M.Eng. Ala J Alnajjar
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 933 [email protected]
The values of mean and standard deviation for all quality control factors in construction
projects in Jordan can be designated. The documents and information availability related
factors was the most addressed factor as it was ranked the first by a mean of (3.45) while the
cost was the lowest factor as its mean was the least (2.03). The total degree for quality
control’s factors mean becomes in a moderate degree as its mean was (2.67). It's noted that all
the skewness values provided in the Table ranged between (-1 and +1) consequently
suggesting a semi normal distribution of the data representing the quality control.
Figure 1 RII Values for All Quality Control Factors
The RII values are represented in Figure-1, the ranking procedure was completed
according to RII values as shown. It is clear to us that documentation availability factor has
the first rank with (69.1); followed by time, communication, safety, team work, monitoring
and design, while cost factor has the last rank with (40.75).
Figure 2 Mean Values Representation for All Quality Control Related Factor
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
DesignFactor
TimeFactor
CostFactor
TeamFactor
Cumm.Factor
SafetyFactor
Docum.Factor
Monit.Factor
Admin.Factor
RII values 41.24 68.49 40.57 44.55 67.26 60.4 69.1 45.18 44.69
RII
Val
ue
s %
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
DesignFactors
TimeFactors
CostRelatedFactors
TeamWork
Factors
Comm. &ContactFactors
SafetyFactors
Doc. &Inf.
Factors
Monit.Factors
Admin.Factors
Me
an V
alu
e
Evaluating the Quality Control Related Factors to Engineering Defects in Construction Projects in Jordan
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 934 [email protected]
Time and documents & information availability factors have a (moderate) mean
classification, as shown in Figure-2, so there was a good interest and application in these
factors .While design, cost, team work, monitoring and administrative factors have (weak)
mean value, so we can conclude that there was a shortage in paying more attention and
importance to these five main factors, and we can notice that the mean values for safety and
communication are (moderate). The overall application of the previous nine main factors is
classified as (moderate).
5.2. Data Analysis for All Engineering Defects
The values for mean, standard deviation, skewness (Sk.) and relative importance index for all
existing engineering defects are presented in Table-7.
Table 7 Values of Mean, Standard Deviation, Sk. And RII for Existing Engineering Defects
No. Engineering Defects Mean Sd Sk RII Rank
1 There are defects resulting from the poor
engineering designs. 3.67 0.70 0.55 73.48 5
2 That there are defects resulting from the
time factor. 2.33 0.59 -0.22 46.63 8
3 There are defects resulting from the cost
factor. 3.83 0.63 0.15 76.63 1
4 There are defects resulting from the work
staff. 3.72 0.68 0.42 74.35 3
5
That there are defects resulting from the
Communication between the parties of the
project.
2.75 0.94 -0.11 55.00 6
6 There are defects resulting from the
occupational safety factors. 2.45 0.99 0.36 49.02 7
7 There are defects resulting from
documents and information factors. 2.18 0.68 -0.25 43.70 9
8
There are defects resulting from the
Follow-up and Inspection factors
(Monitoring).
3.79 0.70 0.32 75.76 2
9 There are defects resulting from
Administrative Factors. 3.70 0.74 0.56 73.91 4
Total Engineering Defects 3.16 0.27 0.26 63.16
The cost related defects were the most type of defects addressed as it has the first rank
with a mean of (3.83) while the documents and information availability related defects were
the lowest factor as its mean was (2.18). The total degree for quality control’s factors mean
becomes in a moderate degree as its mean was (3.16). It is noted that all the skewness values
provided in the Table ranged between (-1 and +1) consequently suggesting a semi normal
distribution of the data representing the quality control.
The RII values are represented in Figure-3, the ranking procedure was completed
according to RII values as shown. We can observe that the cost related defects have the first
rank with (76.63), while the documents and information availability related defects have the
last rank with (43.7).
Dr. Faidhi A-R S Alubaid, Dr. Rami H F Alhadeethi and M.Eng. Ala J Alnajjar
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 935 [email protected]
Figure 3 RII Values for All Engineering Defects
From Figure-4, which shows the realistic state for the related factors that lead for
engineering defects that resulted due to poor quality control, we can conclude that engineering
defects related due to design, cost, team work, monitoring and administrative factors have the
(moderate) classification, while the engineering defects that resulted from time,
communication & contact factors, safety and documents & information availability have
(weak) existence in the construction field in Jordan. The overall classification for defects that
related from all factors is (moderate) classification.
Figure 4 Mean Values Representation for All Existing Engineering Defects
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
DesignDefects
TimeDefects
CostDefects
TeamDefects
Cumm.Defects
SafetyDefects
Docum.Defects
Monit.Defects
Admin.Defects
RII values 73.48 46.63 76.63 74.35 55 49.02 43.7 75.76 73.91
RII
Val
ue
s %
Evaluating the Quality Control Related Factors to Engineering Defects in Construction Projects in Jordan
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 936 [email protected]
6. CONCLUSIONS
The paper analyzed the quality control applications and engineering defects in Jordanian
construction projects. The conclusions drawn are:
1- It is observed that the quality control application has a weak classification, and its state did
not raise to the required level because of the lack of interest in specified quality control
factors that have a weak attention. While the overall engineering defects was ranked as
moderate.
2- The quality control related factors classified weak are design, cost, team work, monitoring
and administrative. Factors rated moderate are time, documents & information availability,
safety and cummunication.
3- The realted factors that lead for engineering defects and given a moderate rate of existence
in the construction field are the design,cost ,team work,monitoring and adminstrative.
Factores classified having weak effects are the time, cummunication & contact, safety and
documents.
Finally, the authors recommend that increasing the interest in the quality control as a
concept for all involved parties in the construction process (client, designer, and contractor).
The top management should be committed and adopt the improvement of supervision's
qualifications and performance. All contact and communication carried out between all
project parties must be done by using the modern technical ways to ensure speed, accuracy
and flexibility.
REFERENCES
[1] Al-Najjar A.J. Quality Control for Clarifying Engineering Defects in Construction
Projects in Jordan. MSc. Thesis, Isra University, Amman, Jordan; 2013.
[2] Al-Hazim N, AbuSalem Z & Ahmad H. Delay and Cost Overrun in Infrastructure Projects
in Jordan. 7th Int. Conference on Engineering Project and Production Management 2017;
Procedia Eng. 182: 18 – 24.
[3] Aziz R.F. Factors causing cost variation for constructing wastewater projects in Egypt.
Alexandria Engineering J. 2012; Volume 52, Issue 1: 51–66.
[4] Alhomidan A. Factors Affecting Cost Overrun in Road Construction Projects in Saudi
Arabia. International J. of Civil & Environmental Engineering 2013. Civil Engineering
Department, Hail University KSA; Vol. 13 No. 3.
[5] Marzouk M.M & El-Rasas T.I. Analyzing delay causes in Egyptian construction projects.
Cairo University, J. of Advanced Research 2014; 5: 49–55.
[6] Gebrehiwet T & Luo H. Analysis of Delay Impact on Construction Project Based on RII
and Correlation Coefficient: Empirical Study. Creative Construction Conference 2017;
Primosten, Croati, Procedia Eng. 196: 366 – 374.
[7] Gluszak M & Lesniak A. Construction Delays in Client’s Opinion – Multivariate
Statistical Analysis. Creative Construction Conference 2015; Procedia Eng. 123: 182 –
189.
[8] Elawia G, Algahtanyb M & Kashiwagic D. Owners’ Perspective of Factors Contributing
to Project Delay: case studies of road and bridge projects in Saudi Arabia. International
Conference on Sustainable Design, Engineering and Construction 2016; Procedia Eng.
145: 1402 – 1409.
[9] Kikwasi G.J. Causes and effects of delays and disruptions in construction projects in
Tanzania. Australasian J. of Construction Economics and Building 2012; Vol.1, No.2: 52-
59.
Dr. Faidhi A-R S Alubaid, Dr. Rami H F Alhadeethi and M.Eng. Ala J Alnajjar
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 937 [email protected]
[10] Sambasivan M & Soon Y.W Causes and Effects of Daly in Malaysian Construction
Industry. International J. of Project Management 2007; 25: 517-526.
[11] Shobana K.S & Ambika D. Evaluation of Factors Affecting Quality in Construction
Projects. Int. J. of Innovative Research in Science Engineering and Technology 2016; Vol.
5, Issue 3: 3526-3529.
[12] Al-Adhmawi F.I. & Al-Ani R. Implementation of Quality Management Concepts in
Managing Engineering Project Site. Jordan. Journal of Civil Engineering 2011; Volume 5,
No.1: 89-106.
[13] Abu Shaban & Saleh Samir. Factors Affecting the Performance of Construction Projects
in the Gaza Strip. J. of Civil Engineering and Management 2008; Vol.15, Issue 3: 269–
280.
[14] Iyer K.C. & Jha K.N. Critical Factors Affecting Quality Performance in Construction
Projects. International J. of Project Management 2006; Vol. 17, No. 9: 1155–1170.
[15] Akhavan T., Mahyuddin R. & Abu Hassan A. Training motivation and teamwork
improvement: the case of construction firms School of Housing, Building and Planning.
African J. of Business Management 2011: Vol. 5, No.14: 5627-5636.
[16] Ali A.S. & Wen K.H. Building Defects: Possible Solution for Poor Construction
Workmanship. J. of Building Performance 2011; the Institution of Surveyors Malaysia,
Vol.2 Issue 1: P59.
[17] Jaffar N., Abdul Tharim A.H. & Shuib M.N. Factors of Conflict in Construction Industry,
A Literature Review. Procedia Engineering, 2nd International Building Control
Conference 2011; Vol. 20: 193 – 202.
[18] Israel G.D. Program Evaluation and Organizational Development, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) 2009. Department of Agricultural Education and
Communication, and extension specialist, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611.
[19] George D. & Mallery P. SPSS for windows step by step, A sample Guide & Reference,
(Fourth Edition) 2003; Allyn & Bacon Publication, Canada, P231.
[20] MacMillan A., Preston D., Wolfe J. & Yu S. Basic statistics: mean, median, average,
standard deviation, z-scores, and p-value 2006; SCRIBD, P28.
[21] Iyer, K.C. & Jha, K.N. Factors Affecting Cost Performance, Evidence from Indian
Construction Projects. International J. of Project Management 2005; Vol. 23, Issue 4:
283–295.
[22] B. Madhavarao, K. Mahindra and SS. Asadi, A Critical Analysis of Material Management
Techniques in Construction Project, International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology, 9(4), 2018, pp. 826 – 835
[23] Thamilarasu V, Rajprasad J and Ram Prasanna Pavan T, A Case Study on Requirements
of Quality Workmanship in Construction Projects. International Journal of Civil
Engineering and Technology, 8(4), 2017, pp. 1061 – 1067.
[24] Aditya Varma K.V, Manideep T and SS. Asadi. A Critical Comparison of Quantity
Estimation for Gated Community Construction Project Using Traditional Method Vs Plan
Swift Software: A Case Study. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology,
7(6), 2016, pp. 707 – 713.