Long Paper

7/29/2019 Long Paper

1/43

HOW TO WRITE LONG PAPER

INTRODUCTION

The report should be written in academic style.

An acceptable Long Paper should conform to the followingminimum requirements:

1. Length - Not less than 60 thesis size double space typed pages(A-4 size).

2. Presentation - The Long Paper should be bound in a cover and

material should be presented in an academic style.

RESEARCH PROPOSAL

A Long Paper should start with an outline.

Spend more time on working out the outline, think out allconceptual and practical details and plot out the approach, strategyand procedure in details.

1


2/43

STRUCTURE OF THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY1

1. RELEVANCE OF THE STUDY Why?

2. OBJECTIVES OF STUDY - What?

METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY How?

SCOPE & LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

CHAPTERISATION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Items 1 to 6 are required for Chapter 1 of the Long Paper also.

Matyas, R. M., A. A., Mathews, R. J. Smith, and P. E. Perry: Construction DisputeReview Board Manual, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1996.

1. FORMAT

The format of the Assignment is written in the indicatedsequence:

i. Title-pageii. Acknowledgements iiii. Declaration iiiv. Certificate iiiv. Contents ivvi. Detailed Contents vvii. List of Tables (if any) viviii. List of Figures (if any) vii

ix. Main Text 11

2


3/43

x. Appendices viiixi. Bibliography ix

3


4/43

DATA COLLECTION

Data collection is a very laborious task and unless donemeticulously, may lead to serious faults in results.

In general, there are three types of data with the students, namely.- Quantitative/ Qualitative (facts, figures, etc.)- Quotations, etc.

The quantitative data is generally the bulkiest. This is done bypresenting it in the form of Tables.

If the student has done his blue print well, he will know what to do

with the data, most often he will make DUMMY TABLES in advanceto be filled in.

Dummy Tables should be made before processing the data.

Increasingly, data processing is being done on computers forwhich the right software package should be selected.

2. GENERAL

DEVELOP YOUR REPORT FIRST IN OUTLINE.

This procedure will save much time and labour in thefollowing ways:

When the working outline is completed you can get a bird'seye view of the job in advance, and see pretty much how itwill shape up in final form. This enables you to ask yourself

honestly, and to answer concretely the great and ultimatequestion that should command the mind of every writer:Exactly what am I telling my reader?

3. STYLE

Write simply and directly. The report need not be longer thanis strictly necessary for clearly presenting what is significantfor your study. Avoid unnecessary repetition.

4


5/43

Reports filled with numbers may be very confusing unless thewriter adheres strictly to the rules regarding their use:

i. Numbers less than one hundred, and round numbers,are usually spelled out. Numbers larger than one

hundred, except round number, are usually given infigures.

ii. No sentence should begin with figures.

iii. Numbers with four or more digits, except dates and pagenumber, must have commas inserted to point offthousands from millions, or lakhs and crores. Do notuse both and spell out the words at first to establishwhich terms you are using.

iv. Numbers indicating PERCENTAGES are usually given infigures although these may be smaller than onehundred. The words "per" and "cent" are not linkedtogether.

Abbreviations

In case of repeated reference mention the full name first andindicate the nature of abbreviations. Smith, Adam et al.

4. FORMAT

The format of the Assignment is written in the indicatedsequence:

xii. Title-pagexiii. Acknowledgementsxiv. Declaration

xv. Certificatexvi. Contentsxvii. Detailed Contentsxviii. List of Tables (if any)xix. List of Figures (if any).xx. Main Textxxi. Appendicesxxii. Bibliography

5


6/43

HOW TO WRITE BIBLIOGRAPHY/FOOTNOTES

The natural order of surname following the given name maybe used in the footnotes. Bibliographical entries as illustratedbelow:

Lundberg, George A.: Social Research, Longman, New York,1994.

TABLES

Each Table should have a number and a title at the top.

Table 1.1PPP Projects in Infrastructure Sector as on 20.05.2006

Sl.No.

InfrastructureSector

State Sector Central Sector

1. Roads 7945.65 22752.00

2. Ports 39507.00 6461.00

3. Airports 2341.79 21204.00

4. Railways 499.00 -

5. Power 16409.11 -

6. Urban

Infrastructure

9414.80 -

Total 76117.35 50417.00 Source: Planning Commission, Govt. of India.

6


7/43

Table 2.1

Sector-wise Investment Anticipated in the Tenth Plan andProjected for the Eleventh Plan

Sectors Rs. Crore Shares%

Electricity (incl. NCE) 666525 32.42Roads and Bridges 314152 15.28Telecommunication 258439 12.57Railways (incl. MRTS) 261808 12.73Irrigation (incl. Watershed) 253301 12.32Water Supply and Sanitation 143730 6.99Ports 87995 4.28Airports 30968 1.51Storage 22378 1.09Gas 16855 0.82Total (Rs crore) 2056150 100.00

Source: http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/11th/11_v1/11v1_ch12.pdf

Fig. 2.1: Sector-wise Investment Anticipated in the Tenth Plan and Projected for the Eleventh PlanSource: http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/11th/11_v1/11v1_ch12.pdf

7


8/43

FIGURES

A figure may be a chart, diagram, drawing, graph, photograph,map, blueprint or any type of illustration.

Fig. 3.1: Sector-wise Investment Anticipated in the Tenth Plan andProjected for the Eleventh Plan.

8


9/43

Placement of Tables and Figures

Since a Table or a Figure is supposed to contain material thatwill be discussed in the text, or that is essential to a clearunderstanding of interpretation of what has been written, the

Table should be placed as near as possible to the discussionin the manuscript that relates to it.

TYPING RULES

i. Pages must be of uniform colour and size.

ii. Pages should be numbered on right hand corner oneinch from top of page and one inch from right edge.

iii. There should be a margin of 1.5" on left hand side - 1"from top - 1" from right hand edge.

iv. Double-spacing should be retained through out exceptin quotations which are centred in the page, or in thefoot -notes. One side of page is to be typed only.

v. Footnotes are to be set off from the page content by aline extending 1/3rd of the way across the page from theleft margin.

The total investment amounts to Rs 2056150 crore. This level ofinvestment amounts to an average of 7.6% of GDP during the EleventhPlan as a whole2.

2 Govt. of India: Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-11), Planning Commission, NewDelhi, 2007, p. 3.

9


10/43

INDICATIVE TITLES

Construction Project Management A study with special referenceto Narmada Bridge

Construction Quality Management A study with special referencea Project

Construction Safety Management A study with special referencea Project

Equipment Management in Construction A study with specialreference a Project

Contracts Management in Construction A study with specialreference a Project

Productivity in Construction A study with special reference aProject

Use of Solar and Wind Power for Engineering ConstructionProjects

Role of Corporate Planning and Strategic Management inConstruction Industry

A Study on the Application of ERP for An Infrastructure Company

Developing Tailor-Made Supply Chain Model for InfrastructureConstruction Firm

Study, Analysis and Design of Information System With a SpecialEmphasis on Estate Construction Industry A Study of Management Information System and Design of AnIntegrated System Model for Materials Management InformationSystem

Resource Management in Construction Projects Using ERP

Modelling of Computer Integrated Construction Site Management

Techno-Commercial Appraisal of Infrastructure Projects

Real Estate in India: Competing for Foreign Direct Investment Financial Appraisal of Infrastructure Projects Under Public PrivatePartnership (PPP) - Identify Various Risk

Study Relating To Financial Appraisal of Large Scale EPC Project

A Study on Structuring A Joint Venture for FDI in Real EstateDevelopment

Market Potential of Foreign Direct Investment in the Real EstateSector of India

An Appraisal of Concession Project Investments (CPIS) inConstruction Firms

10


11/43

Raising Finance for Development of Urban Infrastructure : Needfor Generating More Avenues

Integrated Township Development -Concept To Implementation

Real Estate Valuation Model : Reflecting Reality

Risk Management in Real Estate Projects in India A Study of International Construction Markets and Assessment ofWhere Indian Construction Industry Can Go Looking for Opportunities

Project Appraisal of Slum Redevelopment Scheme Issues andFinding Alternatives / Suggesting New Policies for FasterDevelopment of Slum in Pune

Study of Project Export Opportunities for Indian ConstructionIndustry in African Market

Comparison of International Construction Business With IndianConstruction Business With Special Attention to a Developed Country- USA

A Study of International Construction Market and an Assessmentof Where Indian Construction Industry Can Go Looking forOpportunities (CIS Countries)

Slum Rehabilitation : Strategies for Urban Centres in DevelopedCountries Vis-a-Vis Mumbai

To Carry Out Study of International Construction Market and MakeAn Assessment of Where Indian Construction Industry Can GoLooking for Opportunities

Built To Suit Commercial Projects in India : A ComprehensiveStudy

To Propose Innovative and Programmatic Strategies for SlumRehabilitation in Mumbai City

Building Services, Utilities and Facilities Management of CorporateBuildings - Building Services, Utilities and Maintenance

Building Services, Utilities and Facilities Management of CorporateBuildings - Facilities Management

Study of Important Construction Materials and Technologies forLong Service Life of Building in India

Management of Construction Resources, Its Core Features andthe Integration Approach

Risk Management : A Comparative Study of Power GeneratingResources and Technology

11


12/43

Analysing Urban Development and Traffic Management With BusRapid Transit System and Transit Oriented Development Perspectivefor Pune City

Sustainable Construction : The Future of Indian Construction

Resource Productivity Analysis of Highway Projects Facilities and Services Management : Business Review and

Analysis of Malls

Building Services and Facility Management in High RiseResidential Buildings

Application of Multi Work Package Contracts in InfrastructureProject

Study of Strategies and Constraints in Development of Mass Rapid

Transportation System for Urban Cities Issues Pertaining To EPC Turnkey Projects With SpecialReference to the Power Sector

EPC Turnkey Projects: Study of Issues Impacting Oil and GasPipelines

Dispute Settlement in Construction Industry Role of Arbitration Law

Comparative Study of Indian Conditions of Contract With FIDICConditions of Contract

Comprehensive Study of FIDIC Guidelines for Engineering Project Safety in Real Estate During Planning, Designing, Execution andOperation

EPC / Turnkey Contracts in Oil and Gas Sector

Performance Based Contracting

To Study All the Aspects That Are Significant in Design andConstruction of Energy Efficient Buildings

Optimization of Life Cycle Energy and Cost of A Residential

Building Quality Manual for Building Services for Consultant

Analytical Study on Pune's Road Condition

Lean Construction

Quality Function Deployment in Construction Projects

Business Opportunities in Sea Port and Airport Sectors of India

Economic Analysis of the Indian Infrastructure Sector With SpecialReference To the Power, Roads and Oil and Gas Sector

Power Sector of India Technology Update and Economic Analysis

12


13/43

Tendering and Budding International Construction Projects

Engineering Construction and Financing Through Public-PrivateParticipation With Emphasis on Risk Management Studies inHydropower Projects

Variation and Deviation in Civil Engineering Contract Advance Construction Methodology : A Case Study on Delhi MetroRail Corporation

Assessing Indoor Air Quality for A Platinum Rated Building

Analyzing the Environmental Parameters At Construction Site

Legal Aspects and their Compliances in Construction Project

Quality Assurance in Construction Industry for IntegratedTownship Project

A Study on Design and Procurement of Construction Material Planning and Analysis of Construction Operations

A Study of Embodied Energy in A Commercial Complex

Design Change Management in Building Project

Safe Guarding the Buildings Against Environmental Conditions:Water Proofing and Heating

Design Build Contract

Innovative Hr Practices and Their Applicability in ConstructionIndustry

Study of Sub-Contracting Practices in Construction Industry

Implementation of ISO 9001:2000 in Construction Industry

Analysis of Constraints Faced By Constructors in Executing NHAIProject With Special Reference To Land Acquisition in InfrastructureProjects

Human Resource Development in the Construction Industries

Total Quality Management: A Study Planning and Selection of Equipments for Major InfrastructureProject

Study of Emerging Real Estate Market

Strategies for Environmental Pollution Control in Metro Cities I.E.in Kolkatta

Feasibility and Constrains Related To Privatisation of Ports in India

Supply Chain Management in Indian Construction Industry

Role of A Project Manager in Construction Project Execution

13


14/43

Risk Assessment and Trends in Infrastructure Project on BOTBasis

Study the Infrastructure Construction Market and Evolve KeyStrategies for Project Marketing, Based on Marketing Theories

Future Trends of Project Management To Study the Conflict Management Style of Techno-Managers inConstruction Industry

Trends in Retrofitting of Buildings Some Realistic Approaches

Comparative Study of Safety Practices in Different Types ofConstruction Projects

Value Engineering in Construction

14


15/43

FACTORS CAUSING CONSTRUCTION DELAYS: A SURVEY

OF LARGE HOUSING PROJECTS IN INDIA

.

INTRODUCTION

Housing construction is an important growth engine in India. In 2001, out of the 9.6% of the

GDP contributed by the construction industry, housing construction contributed to 4.5%,

indicating its importance in nation building3. In this context, owing to the increasing housing

investments, triggered by Governments enabling approaches (allowing FDI in housing, easy

finance to demand and supply sides, to mention a few), the need of the hour is for an

efficient and timely completion of the housing projects. In addition to this, with the start of

public-private partnerships in housing construction, with no escalation clause and

compensation payable for delayed possession of completed dwelling units to the end users,

the need to complete the projects in planned and promised time and budget, further

increases. However, while bringing up such large projects, a number of unexpected

problems and changes from the original design arise during the construction phase of such

projects, resulting in construction delays4. Since cost escalation is a derived effect of these

delays, exploring the reasons for such delays is one of the prerequisites of keeping the cost

within the initial budget and ensuring the scheduled completion time.

Starting with the pioneering work by Bromilow5 in Australia on building projects, a review of

literature presents an array of systematic studies on construction delays, from various parts

of the world. To mention a few, Baldwin and Manthai6 in USA, Kumaraswamy and Chan7 in

Hong Kong, Mezhar and Tawil8 in Lebanon, Al-Homani9 in 2000 and Odeh and Battaineh10 in

3 Tenth Five Year Plan (2002-07), Planning Commission, Government of India.4 Chan D.W.M., Kumaraswamy M.M., An Evaluation of Construction Time

Performance in the Building Industry, Building and Environment, Vol.31-6 (1996) pp.

569 578.5 Bromilow, F.J., Contract Time Performance Expectations and Reality, Building

Forum, 1-3 (1969) pp.7 - 80.6 Baldwin J.R., Manthai J.M. Causes of Delay in the Construction Industry. Journal of

Construction Division. ASCE 97 (1971) 177-87.7 Kumaraswamy M.M., Chan D.C.W. Contributors to Construction Delays.

Construction Management and Economics. 16 (1998) 16-29.8 Mezhar TM, Tawil W. Causes of Delays in the Construction Industry in Lebanon.

Engineering Construction and Architectural Management Journal. 5-3 (1998) 251-260.

9 Al-Homani A.H. Construction Delay: A quantitative analysis. International Journal

of Project Management. 18 (2000) 51-59.10 Odeh A.M., Battaineh H.T. Causes of Construction Delay: Traditional contracts.International Journal of Project Management. 20 (2002) 67 73.

15


16/43

2002 in Jordan studied the causes of delay in construction industry. Ogulana et al.11 found

out such causes in a fast-growing economy like Thailand in 1996 and compared them with

similar other economies. Arditi et al.12 in 1985, probed the reasons for delays in public

projects in Turkey. Okpala and Aniekwu13 in 1988 studied the causes of high costs of

construction in Nigeria. Delays in large construction projects were studied by Sullivan andHarris14 in UK, Assaf et al.15 in Saudi Arabia and by Long et al.16in Vietnam.

OBJECTIVES

The authors had not come across such a systematic study on construction delays,

conducted on housing projects in India. In this context, the present study aims to address

this gap with the following objectives:

- To identify the principal factors causing construction delays in large housing projects inIndia.

- To derive the relative significance of these factors as perceived by the key stakeholdersof such housing projects.

- To test for agreement between the respondent groups in ranking the construction delayfactors.

- To draw logical inferences from the survey responses and propose relevantrecommendations to minimize the effect of some of these construction delay factors.

A questionnaire survey conducted during March and April 2005, among two key

stakeholders (consultants and contractors) involved in large housing projects in Kolkata,

formed the basis for this study. Housing projects with more than 100 dwelling units or projectcosts in excess of Rs. 100 million are considered as large. The factors considered as

causing delays were limited to the construction phase of such housing projects. The

developer of such housing projects is referred to as client in this study.

It is expected that the results from this study would provide an improved understanding of

participants views about principal factors causing construction delays. And, would help in

generating strategies to alleviate the root causes of some of these problems and result in

11 Ogulana S.O., Promkuntong K., JearKJirm V. Construction Delays in a Fast-growingEconomy: Comparing Thailand with other economies. International Journal of ProjectManagement. 14-1 (1996) 37-45.

12 Arditi R.D., Akan G.T., Gurdamar S. Reasons for Delays in Public Projects inTurkey. Construction Management and Economics. 3. (1985) 171-181.

13 Okpala D.C., Aniekwu AN. Causes of High Costs of Construction in Nigeria. Journalof Construction Engineering and Management. ASCE 114 (1988) 233-44.

14 Sullivan A, Harris F.C. Delays on Large Construction Projects. International Journalof Operations and Production Management. 6-1 (1986) 25-33.

15 Assaf S.A., Al-Khalil, Al-Hazmi. Causes of Delay in Large Building ConstructionProjects. Journal of Management in Engineering. ASCE 11-2 (1995) 45-50.

16

Long ND, Ogunlana S, Quang T, Lam KC. Large Construction Projects inDeveloping Countries: A case study from Vietnam. International Journal of ProjectManagement. 22 (2004) 553-561.

16


17/43

significant improvements in time and derived cost performance of future housing projects in

India.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Simister

17

ascertained that questionnaire surveys are the currently favoured methodology inconstruction management related studies. Such surveys, according to him, collect data in

standardized questionnaires from random samples of a population and enable the

researcher to derive statistical inferences from the collected data. Hence, designing a well-

structured survey questionnaire becomes the first step in conducting a successful study.

Design of survey questionnaire

The questionnaire used for the present survey was designed based on literature review on

similar surveys and observations by the researcher. A comparison of the factors consideredfor the present survey, with some similar studies is presented in Table 1.

While designing the questionnaire used in the present study, preliminary design by the

researcher was fine tuned employing Delphi approach among research colleagues,

professors at the Departments of Architecture and Regional Planning, Civil Engineering and

Industrial Engineering and Management at Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur and the

senior vice president of an established public-private partnership housing development

company at Kolkata. A pilot survey was conducted and few questions were added andmodified before freezing the questionnaire. Finally, a total of 50 factors that could cause

construction delays were identified and grouped under 10 gross factor categories. These

gross factors represent the key players / resources / policies that might induce the detailed

factors such as late release of interim payments by the developer, resulting delays in the

progress of construction. Table 2 presents the complete list of these gross factors and

detailed factors, in the same order of the questionnaire.

Respondents characteristics

Target group of the respondents consisted of consultants and contractors, involved with

large group housing projects in Kolkata. The consultants group primarily consisted of

architects. Others belonging to this group included structural and related consultants. The

contractors group in this survey consisted of professionally qualified civil engineers

employed with professional construction companies. The others included in this group are

the owners of traditional construction companies involved in housing projects of the scale

17 Simister S. Case Study Methodology for Construction Management Research.

Proceedings of the 11th

Annual ARCOM Conference, Association of Researchers inConstruction Management. York, U. K., 18-20 Sept 1995, pp.21-32.

17


18/43

mentioned earlier. Probable list of the respondents was prepared by referring to the

Directory of Council of Architecture (8), Kolkata Real-estate Directory (17), a special

magazine on housing projects in Kolkata (9) and by means of personal networking. From

this gross list, organizations and consultancy firms confirming to the scope of the

questionnaire survey were short-listed after consulting with construction professionals at

Kolkata.

Method adopted for conducting the survey

Systematic research work and questionnaire surveys related to construction industry are

very rare in India. Considering the urgency for immediate problems in the building industry

and the general reluctance to questionnaire surveys, a direct face-to-face interview-cum-

questionnaire survey was chosen as an appropriate alternative to a postal questionnairesurvey. Very low response rates of postal questionnaire surveys reported by other

researchers (7, 11) further strengthened the appropriateness of this survey method.

Introductory letters from the researchers doctoral supervisors provided the initial ice-

breaking in conducting the survey. Since the target group belonged to senior management

of the respective organizations, initially getting an appointment was found to be very difficult.

However, once the communication was established and purpose of the survey was

understood, the respondents willingly shared the best of their experiences. 42% of the

respondents were comfortable sharing information in discussion mode, prompting the

researcher to fill in the questionnaire. At an average, it took about one and half hours to

furnish sufficient details to complete a questionnaire.

METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS

Weighted score method was used in some studies (1, 10) to reduce the bias of respondents

opinion. A multiplying factor was used, usually determined by the researcher, to convert the

respondents choice into a weighted score. Alternatively, to preserve the qualitative

perception of the respondents, their opinion was requested at two levels in this study, one at

the gross factors level and second at the corresponding detailed factors level. In Figure 1,

level 1 represents the gross factor level consisting of 10 questions and level 2 represents

the detailed factor level consisting of 5 sub-questions corresponding to each of the level 1

questions. Further, to strengthen the respondents ability to choose, a 9-point scale was

adopted in rating the gross factors and a 5-point scale in rating the detailed factors. Higher

number meant higher significance of the factor in causing construction delays. Absolute

score of each delay causing factor was calculated by multiplying the scores given to a gross

18


19/43

factor and to each of its detailed factors. Mean score for each of the detailed factors was

derived by averaging their absolute scores across all the questionnaires.

Long et al. (11) adopted Mean Score (MS) method to analyze the questionnaire response

data in ranking the relative significance of common problems experienced in large

construction projects in Vietnam. A higher MS indicates a higher significance of the factor in

causing construction delays.

In this study, MS for each of the delay factors was calculated as follows:

; ;

MSj=jth factors mean score

=jth factors gross factor score

=jth factors detailed factor score

N= number of respondents.

In order to quantitatively measure the agreement in ranking between any two groups of

participants, Okpala (15) used Rank Agreement Factor (RAF) analysis. A higher RAF value

suggests a lesser agreement between the two groups. RAF of zero indicates perfect

agreement. RAF is defined as:

RAF = rank agreement factor

= consultants rank to ith factor

= contractors rank to ith factor

N = number of factors in questionnaire

Odeh and Battaineh (14) used Spearmens Rank Correlation (SRC) analysis to test the

agreement between contractors and consultants in ranking all the construction delay causing

factors. The SRC coefficient is defined as:

rs= SRC coefficient

di= difference in ith factors ranking

N= number of factors.

The SRC coefficient takes a value between 0 and 1. A higher value indicates a stronger

agreement and vice versa, between any two participant groups.

19


20/43

ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE DATA

Results from the questionnaire response data analysis are presented in this section. This is

followed by a comparison of results with leading researchers from different parts of the globe

to validate the results found in this study.

A total of 24 completed questionnaires were considered for the final analysis, consisting of

12 each from consultants and contractors groups. In this survey, respondents from the

consultants group averaged 21.5 years of experience with a range of 4 to 40 years.

Similarly, the contractors group had an average experience of 23.2 years ranging from 3 to

44 years. Considering the high construction work experience of the respondents, their ability

to choose the significance of the factors in causing delays was regarded as reliable. In

addition, stratified random sampling of the respondents ensured that their responses

represented the opinion of the housing construction industry in general.

Mean score method was adopted in computing the rankings of the delay factors. A higher

mean score denoted a higher significance of that factor in causing construction delays. The

factor rankings based on the mean score, ranged from 1 to 50. Rank 1 represented highest

significance whereas rank 50, least. Questionnaire responses from the consultants and

contractors groups were analyzed and ranked separately. Factor mean scores ranged from

8.67 to 25.92 and 9.00 to 24.33, for consultants and contractors groups respectively. The

ranks of the factors with equal mean score were prioritized according to lesser standard

deviation.

The top 20 construction delay causing factors, ranked in the order of their significance as

perceived by the respondent groups, are presented in Tables 3 and 4. The five most

significant delay factors, according to the consultants group were: (i) slow decision making

by the developer (ii) late release of interim payments by the developer (iii) low overall

productivity by contractor (iv) subcontractors delays and (v) insufficient working capital.

Similarly, according to the contractors group, the five most significant delay factors were: (i)

late interim payments by the developer (ii) late release of drawings / details by architects (iii)

low overall productivity by contractor (iv) insufficient working capital and (v) poor resource

allocation.

Selection of factors based on agreement in rankings

Criteria for the selection of the factors, highly and least agreed upon in rankings, is

presented in this section, followed by a listing of the factors that qualified this criteria. Rank-

differences for each factor between the two participant groups were computed for this

purpose. The series consisting of rank-differences of all the 50 factors had a mean of 8.26

20


21/43

and a standard deviation of 6.72, with individual values ranging from 0 to 24. The large

standard deviation observed is probably due to the small sample size, and is expected to get

normalized with a larger sample size. Considering the high experience levels of the

respondent groups, it is expected that, rank-differences within 65% confidence level itself

could provide a highly reliable first hand information about the degree of agreement betweenthe participant groups in ranking the factors. Hence, the factors with rank-differences less

than or 1.54 2 are considered as highly agreed upon whereas more than or 14.98 15 are

considered as least agreed upon. According to the results obtained, rankings of 11 delay

factors were highly agreed upon whereas of 9 factors were least agreed upon. The list of

factors that qualified as highly and least agreed upon are presented in Tables 5 and 6. Mean

score and relative rank of each of these factors by both the participant groups along with the

factor rank differences are presented in these tables.

The factors whose rankings were highly agreed upon included: late release of interim

payments, low overall productivity, sub contractors delays, insufficient working capital, poor

resource allocation, rework due to mistakes / insufficient quality, low profit margins due to

competition, insufficient construction planning, slow decision making, inadequate

communication between client & contractor and low / no work due to festivals etc. The

factors with least agreed upon rankings included: inefficient project control methods,

constructability of design details, religious / other commitments, inaccurate estimation of

material requirements, ineffective communication between contractor & sub contractors,shortage of material in the market, high waiting time for availability of work teams, ineffective

communication within contractors team and shortage of unskilled manpower.

Selection of most significant delay factors

In the process of selecting the most significant delay factors, a further refinement of the

factors qualified as highly agreed upon in section 4.1 is proposed in this section. For this

purpose, the distribution of mean scores of delay factors by both the participant groups

needs to be considered. Consultants mean scores ranged from 8.67 to 25.92, with a meanof 15.92 and a standard deviation of 4.35. The contractors mean scores ranged from 9.00 to

24.33, with a mean of 16.84 and a standard deviation of 3.74. Considering that the values

within gives a 95 % confidence level, the area between these boundary values was divided

into 5 parts. Thus, the delay factors with mean scores more than were considered as the

most significant in causing construction delays. This threshold value was computed to be

21.03 for the consultants group and 21.24 for the contractors group. Thus, from Table 5,

the factors that satisfied both these criteria were considered as the most significant factors

21


22/43

that could cause construction delays during the construction phase of large housing projects

in India.

Seven factors were found to qualify the above criteria. These included: late release of interim

payments, low overall productivity, sub contractors delays, insufficient working capital, poor

resource allocation, rework due to mistakes / low quality and low profit margins due to

competition.

Selection of least significant delay factors

As per Table Nos. 6, 7 the threshold mean-score values were computed to be 10.80 and

12.44 for consultants and contractors groups respectively. A total 8 factors, 3 from

consultants rankings and 6 from contractors rankings qualified this criterion, with one factor

as common in both. Since there was only one factor that was common in both theserankings, the rank difference criteria could not be applied in selecting the least significant

delay factors.

Thus, the factors qualified as least significant in causing construction delays included: small/

inaccessible site area, high waiting time for the availability of equipment, shortage of

unskilled manpower, shortage of proper equipment, religious / other commitments, wrong

selection of equipment type / capacity, low efficiency of equipment use / high downtime and

low productivity of equipment operators. It is to be noted that all the five factors under the

equipment related factors qualified as least significant in causing construction delays.

Testing for agreement in rankings between the participant groups

Rank agreement factor analysis is used to quantitatively measure the degree of agreement

between any two participant groups in ranking the same set of factors. For this purpose,

Rank Agreement Factors (RAF) within each of the factor categories are computed as

mentioned in section 3 and are presented in Table 7. The average RAF value computed

(8.26 out of maximum possible 25) indicated a definite agreement between the two groups in

ranking the significance of the construction delay factors. In a similar study conducted in

Hong Kong, Chan and Kumaraswamy (7) reported a RAF value of 4. Considering that a

higher value means lesser agreement, it can be verified from the table that, contractor

related factors had highest agreement and material related factors were least agreed upon.

The results obtained in RAF analysis is further verified by computing the Spearmans rank

correlation coefficient, as mentioned in section 3. The Spearmans rank correlation

coefficient, between the rankings by the two groups was calculated to be 0.736. A higher

value means a strong agreement and hence this value further confirms a high degree of

22


23/43

agreement between the two participant groups. Odeh & Battaineh (14) considered a rank

correlation coefficient value of 0.789, obtained in their study, as an indication of a strong

agreement in ranking of delay factors between contractors and consultants.

Comparison of rankings between the participant groups

A critical analysis of the rankings by both participant groups within each of the factor

category is presented in this section. A comparison of factor mean scores and the value of

RAF for each factor category are considered for this analysis. The analysis is graphically

presented in Figure 2.

Client related factors [Figure 2 (i)]: A slightly higher than the average RAF (10.00 / 8.26)

indicated some degree of disagreement between the two groups. Consultants opined that

client related factors often delay construction progress. The factor late release of interimpayments was highly agreed upon whereas religious / other commitments was least

agreed upon, as causing delay in construction.

Consultant related factors [Figure 2 (ii)]: A RAF value less than the average (6.40 / 8.26),

exhibited a better agreement between the two groups. Total agreement was observed for the

factor, slow decision making by architects whereas strong disagreement was seen in

constructability of design details, as causing delay in construction. The factor late release

of drawings / details received the highest mean score by both groups within this factorcategory.

Contractor related factors[Figure 2 (iii)]:Highest agreement (1.00 / 8.26) was found in this

factor category. Though consultants had ranked these factors slightly higher than the

contractors, all the factors were highly agreed upon as significant in causing delays in

construction. It can also be noted that all the five factors received a mean score of more

than 20 by both the groups.

Material related factors [Figure 2(iv)]:Strongest disagreement (14.80 / 8.26) was observedbetween the two groups in ranking these factors. Contractors ranked them significantly

higher than the consultants. Closest agreement was seen for material changes during

project execution whereas the factor inaccurate estimation of material requirements was

vehemently disagreed. However, only one factor (poor material procurement planning) in

this factor category received a mean score close to 20, indicating a lower level of

significance of these factors in general, in causing construction delays.

Labour related factors [Figure 2 (v)]: Rankings indicated a higher disagreement (11.80 /8.26) in this category. Contractors felt that these factors are more significant in causing

23


24/43

construction delays. The factor shortage of unskilled manpower was highly disagreed upon

whereas the factor low labour productivity levels was least disagreed upon, as causing

construction delays.

Equipment related factors [Figure 2(vi)]:An average agreement was found (7.40 / 8.26)

between the two groups in ranking these factors. Consultants ranked these factors slightly

higher than the contractors. The factors in this category received the least mean scores in

the survey. It indicates that, both the key stakeholders felt that these are the least significant

factors in causing construction delays.

Natural / external factors [Figure 2(vii)]: Strong agreement (4.00 / 8.26) in ranking these

factors can be seen between the two groups, with rank differences of 7 or less. Contractors

ranked these factors slightly higher than the consultants. A perfect agreement was seen for

the factor low / no work due to festivals etc. Further it can be noted that high waiting for

approvals from authorities was the only factor receiving a mean score more than 20.

Project specific factors[Figure 2(viii)]:Average agreement (7.60 / 8.26) was found in ranking

these factors. The factors, disruptions in site supplies (power/water etc) and unforeseen

ground conditions were highly agreed upon whereas unrealistic construction schedules

was least agreed upon in causing delays in construction. It can be further noted that, all the

factors received mean scores ranging from 15 to 20, indicating a medium level significance

of these factors in causing construction delays.

Communication related factors [Figure 2 (ix)]:A high disagreement (11.20 / 8.26) was

observed as contractors ranked these factors higher than the consultants. Inadequate

communication between client and contractor was highly agreed upon whereas within

contractors team was strongly disagreed upon as responsible for delays in construction

progress.

Management related factors [Figure 2 (x)]:Good agreement was found between both the

two groups (8.40 / 8.26). The factors insufficient working capital and insufficient

construction planning were highly agreed upon whereas inefficient project control methods

was least agreed upon, as responsible for delays in construction. Both the highly agreed

upon factors received a mean score more than 20, indicating their strong significance in

causing delays in construction.

COMPARISON OF THE RESULTS WITH OTHER SIMILAR STUDIES

Results of five similar studies were compared with the present study. It can be seen from the

comparative analysis presented in Table 8 that the results obtained in this study were largely

24


25/43

in agreement with the results obtained in similar studies from different parts of the globe by

leading researchers. Al-Homani (1), Arditi et al. (2) and Mansfield et al (12) also found that

late release of payments by owners as one of the most significant factors resulting in

construction delays. Arditi et. al. (2), Chan and Kumaraswamy (6), Long et. al. (11) and

Mansfield et al. (12) reported that low overall productivity was a resultant of prime

contractors incompetence. Thus, this study strengthens the fact that despite the

geographical differences, building construction projects face similar kind of obstacles during

their construction phase. Further, within the present study, a strong agreement was found in

ranking the significance of the delay causing factors by consultants and contractors in this

study. It can be verified from Figures 3 & 4 that, out of the top 20 significant delay factors, 15

factors were chosen by both the consultants and contractors.

INFERENCES AND CONCLUSIONS

The main survey central to this study was conducted among consultants and contractors

involved in large housing projects in Kolkata, with the focus to identify the relative

significance of the factors that could cause construction delays. An attempt has been made

to bring together the views as perceived and agreed upon by both these key stakeholders. It

is hoped that, this improved understanding could be used to formulate strategies to alleviate

at least some of the root causes of these problems, and better the time and cost

performance of future housing and other similar projects in India. The questionnaire used inthis study consisted of 50 previously identified delay causing factors, categorized into ten

major groups. Respondents were asked to rank these factors according to their significance

in causing construction delays. Mean score method together with Rank agreement factor

and Spearmans correlation coefficient was adopted for the analysis of the data collected

from the survey.

The main inferences of the survey are as follows: (1) Factors that both groups have agreed

upon as most significant in causing construction delays are: late release of interim

payments, owner initiated change orders, rework due to mistakes / low quality, sub

contractors delays, poor resource allocation, low overall productivity, low profit margins due

to competition, insufficient construction planning and insufficient working capital. (2) Both

groups viewed equipment related factors as least significant in causing delays; however, the

underlying fact could be the low level of equipment usage itself in housing construction

rather than their efficient use. (3) Contractor related factors were highly agreed upon. It may

be surprising that the contractors ranked the factors related to them, as among the most

significant in causing construction delays. However, it is to be noted that they have rankedlate release of interim payments by the developer and drawings / details by architects as the

25


26/43

triggering events for their delays. (4) Least agreement was seen in material related factors.

Consultants viewed these factors with much lesser significance than contractors. This study

finds that architects are expected to take a lead role in integrating the design and

construction technology, and facilitate phasing of construction by efficient construction

planning together with matching material procurement schedules. (5) The factor late releaseof interim payments by the developer was highly ranked (rank 1 by contractors and rank 2 by

consultants) and hence this study identifies this as the single most significant delay causing

factor. (6) The RAF could be used to analyze the factors within each category and among all

the categories for agreement between the two groups where as Spearmans correlation

analysis, due to the second order terms in the equation, could be used only to analyze the

overall agreement.

It can be concluded from this study that late release of interim payments by the clients and

late release of drawings / details by architects could be the triggering causes for a series of

interconnected delays. Because of insufficient construction planning, financial planning

becomes erroneous, resulting in working capital bottlenecks and affecting the smooth

progress of construction. In addition to these, slower decision making process by both, the

client and the architects, further delays the progress. This study brings out the

recommendations that, integrating the practicality of construction planning right from the

architectural design stage of the housing projects can ensure that the developed facility

would achieve the planned time, cost and quality performances.

The purpose of this study was to test the relative agreement between two key stakeholders

in housing construction about a predetermined set of construction delay factors. A definite

trend of agreement was observed related to several factors. An attempt to analyze reasons

for the agreement or disagreement between the two groups on the identified factors was

also presented. It is hoped that the results found in this study can help in identifying suitable

measures to improve the cost and time performance of future housing projects in India.

26


27/43

Table 1.1

Comparison of Factor Categories Used In Various Studies

Chan

&

Kumaras

wamy

[6]

Odeh&

Battan

ineh

[14] L

onge

tal.

[11]

Presentstudy

Number of delay causal factors 83 28 62 50

Factor categories

Client-related

Communication / coordination

relatedx x

Consultant related

Contract factors x x x

Contractor related

Contractual relations x x x

External factors

Financier related x x x

Labour related x

Management related x x x

Material related x

Plant / equipment related x

Project related x

27


28/43

Table 1.2

Gross Factors and Detailed Factors Used For the Design of the Questionnaire

I. Developer related factors

(a) Late release of interim payments(b) Slow decision making

(c) Developer initiated change order

(d) Religious / other commitments

(e) Low decision power with project manager

II. Architect related factors

(a) Late release of drawings / details

(b) Discrepancies in drawings / details

(c) Constructability of design details(d) Slow decision making

(e) Delays due to other consultants

III. Contractor related factors

(a) Rework due to mistakes / low quality

(b) Subcontractors delays

(c) Poor resource allocation

(d) Low overall productivity

(e) Low profit margins due to competitionIV. Construction material related factors

(a) Poor material procurement planning

(b) Shortage of material in the market

(c) Changes in materials during project

execution

(d) Inaccurate estimation of material

requirements

(e) Non-reliability of material delivery

V. Labour related factors

(a) Shortage of skilled manpower

(b) Shortage of unskilled manpower

(c) Shortage of managerial / supervisory

personnel

(d) Low labour productivity

(e) High waiting time for availability of work

teams

VI. Equipment related factors

(a) Shortage of proper equipment(b) Low efficiency of use / high downtime

(c) Wrong selection of type / capacity

(d) High waiting time for availability ofequipment

(e) Low productivity of equipment operators

VII. Nature / External factors

(a) Rain / other natural disruptions

(b) Waiting time for approvals from

authorities

(c) High waiting time for test samples /inspections

(d) Anticipated material price fluctuations

(e) Low / no work due to festivals

VIII. Project specific factors

(a) Unforeseen ground conditions

(b) Unrealistic construction schedules

(c) Small / inaccessible site area

(d) Disruption in site supplies (power / water

etc)

(e) Lack of coordination among project-

teams

IX. Inadequate communication between -

(a) Client & Contractor

(b) Client & Designer

(c) Designer & Contractor

(d) Contractor & Sub-contractor

(e) Within Contractors team

X. Management related factors

(a) Insufficient working capital

(b) Insufficient construction planning

(c) Strict labour policies

(d) Strict inventory policies

(e) Ineffective project-control methods

28


29/43

Table 1.3

Ranking of Delay Factors by Consultants

Hypnotized Factor SD Mean Score Rank

Slow decision making (developer) 13.46 25.92 1Late release of interim payments 15.59 24.17 2Low overall productivity 13.28 23.92 3Sub contractor's delays 13.50 23.17 4Insufficient working capital 13.59 22.75 5Poor resource allocation 12.45 22.33 6Developer initiated change orders 11.39 22.25 7Rework due to mistakes/low quality 14.57 22.25 8*Low profit margins due to competition 14.67 22.00 9Low decision power with project manager 13.99 21.17 10

Insufficient construction planning 13.15 20.33 11Inefficient project control methods 12.36 19.17 12Late release of drawings / details 15.22 19.17 13*Waiting time for approvals from authorities 13.62 18.83 14Slow decision making (architect) 14.05 18.58 15Discrepancies in drawings / details 16.79 18.42 16Delays due to other consultants 14.27 18.00 17Rain / other natural disruptions 13.99 16.58 18Strict labour policies 12.53 15.75 19Constructability of design details 14.44 15.50 20* Equal mean scores of individual factors were ranked according to lesser standard deviation

(SD).

29


30/43

Table 1.4

Ranking of Delay Factors by Contractors

Hypnotized delay factors SD Mean Score Rank

Late release of interim payments 14.45 24.33 1Late release of drawings / details 12.13 22.67 2Low overall productivity 13.79 22.67 3*Insufficient working capital 14.01 21.75 4Poor resource allocation 12.84 21.67 5Sub contractor's delays 14.75 21.58 6Rework due to mistakes/low quality 11.89 21.50 7Low profit margins due to competition 13.92 21.42 8Insufficient construction planning 15.29 21.25 9Developer initiated change orders 10.50 20.83 10Slow decision making (developer) 14.20 20.33 11High waiting time for approvals by

authorities 11.74 20.33 12*Poor material procurement planning 14.17 19.75 13Delays due to other consultants 10.48 19.25 14Slow decision making (architect) 10.87 18.83 15Non-reliability of material delivery 9.77 18.42 16Inaccurate estimation of material 14.15 18.42 17*Shortage of skilled manpower 14.65 18.25 18Discrepancies in drawings / details 9.66 18.17 19

Changes in materials during projectexecution 10.17 18.17 20** Equal mean scores of individual factors were ranked according to lesser standard deviation (SD).

30


31/43

Table 1.5

Highly Agreed Upon Factors in Participants Ranking

Hypnotized delay factors

Consultants

Mean score

(Rank)

Contractors

Mean score

(Rank)

Rank

Differenc

eLate release of interim payments 24.17 (2) 24.33 (1) 1Low overall productivity 23.92 (3) 22.67 (2) 1Sub contractor's delays 23.17 (4) 21.58 (6) 2Insufficient working capital 22.75 (5) 21.75 (4) 1Poor resource allocation 22.33 (6) 21.67 (5) 1Rework due to mistakes / insufficient

quality 22.25 (7) 21.50 (7) 0Low profit margins due to competition 22.00 (9) 21.42 (8) 1Insufficient construction planning 20.33 (11) 21.25 (9) 2Slow decision making 18.58 (15) 18.83 (15) 0

Client & contractor 12.83 (37) 14.58 (36) 1Low / no work due to festivals etc. 12.75 (38) 14.42 (38) 0

31


32/43

Table 1.6

Least Agreed Upon Factors in Participants Ranking

Hypnotized delay factors

Consultants

Mean score

(Rank)

Contractors

Mean score

(Rank)

Rank

DifferenceInefficient project control methods 19.17 (12) 16.08 (30) 18Constructability of design details 15.50 (20) 14.58 (36) 16Religious / other commitments 14.50 (23) 10.42 (46) 23Inaccurate estimation of material

requirements 12.67 (40) 18.42 (16) 24Contractor & sub contractors 12.50 (41) 16.83 (26) 15Shortage of material in the market 11.50 (45) 17.67 (22) 23High waiting time for availability of work

teams 10.83 (46) 16.25 (29) 17Within contractor's team 10.83 (47) 16.92 (24) 22

Shortage of unskilled manpower 8.67 (50) 15.92 (31) 19

32


33/43

Table 1.7

Rank Agreement Factors

Factor Category Rank Agreement Factor

Developer related 10.00Architect related 6.40Contractor related 1.00Material related 14.80Labour related 11.80Equipment related 7.40Natural / External factors 4.00Project specific factors 7.60Communication related 11.20Management related 8.40

Average 8.26

33


34/43

Table 1.8

Comparison of Results with Similar Studies

Author Most significant delay factors

Al-Homani [1]: Poor design, change orders, weather, site conditions, late delivery of

payments, economic conditions and increase in quantity.Arditi et al [2]: Preparation and approval of shop drawings, delays in contractors

progress, payment and slow decision making by owners, design

changes and errors, labour shortages and inadequate skills.Chan and

Kumaraswamy

[6]:

Poor site management and supervision, unforeseen ground conditions,

low speed of decision making involving all project teams, client-initiated

variations and necessary variations of works.Long et al [11]: Incompetent designers and contractors, poor estimation and change

management, social and technological issues, site related issues, andimproper techniques and tools.

Mansfield et al

[12]:

Financing of and payment for completed works, poor contract

management, changes in site condition and material shortages.Present study: Late release of interim payments, low overall productivity, sub

contractor's delays, insufficient working capital, poor resource

allocation, rework due to mistakes / insufficient quality and low profit

margins due to competition.

34


35/43

Figure 1. Two level decision tree adopted in questionnaire data analysis

35


36/43

Figure 2. Comparison of rankings for each factor category

36


37/43

Figure 3. Ranking of delay factors by Consultants

37


38/43

Figure 4. Ranking of delay factors by Contractors

38


39/43

Bibliography

1. Al-Homani A.H. Construction Delay: A quantitative analysis. International Journal ofProject Management. 18 (2000) 51-59.

2. Arditi R.D., Akan G.T., Gurdamar S. Reasons for Delays in Public Projects in Turkey.Construction Management and Economics. 3. (1985) 171-181.

3. Assaf S.A., Al-Khalil, Al-Hazmi. Causes of Delay in Large Building ConstructionProjects. Journal of Management in Engineering. ASCE 11-2 (1995) 45-50.

4. Baldwin J.R., Manthai J.M. Causes of Delay in the Construction Industry. Journal ofConstruction Division. ASCE 97 (1971) 177-87.

5. Bromilow, F.J. Contract Time Performance Expectations and Reality. Building. Forum,1-3 (1969) 7 & 80.

6. Chan D.W.M., Kumaraswamy M.M. An Evaluation of Construction Time Performancein the Building Industry. Building and Environment. 31-6 (1996) 569 578.

7. Chan DWM, Kumaraswamy MM. A Comparative Study of Causes of Time Overruns inHong Kong Construction Projects. International Journal of Project Management. 15-1(1997) 55-63.

8. Directory of Architects, Council of Architecture.

9. Home-sweet home: A Comprehensive Guide to Kolkatas Real Estate Scenario, TheTelegraph (2005).

10. Kumaraswamy M.M., Chan D.C.W. Contributors to Construction Delays. Construction

Management and Economics. 16 (1998) 16-29.11. Long ND, Ogunlana S, Quang T, Lam KC. Large Construction Projects in Developing

Countries: A case study from Vietnam. International Journal of Project Management.22 (2004) 553-561.

12. Mansfield NR, Ogwu O.O., Doran T. Causes of Delay And Cost Overruns in NigerianConstruction Projects. International Journal of Project Management. 12-4 (1994) 254-260.

13. Mezhar TM, Tawil W. Causes of Delays in the Construction Industry in Lebanon.Engineering Construction and Architectural Management Journal. 5-3 (1998) 251-260.

14. Odeh A.M., Battaineh H.T. Causes of Construction Delay: Traditional contracts.

International Journal of Project Management. 20 (2002) 67 73.15. Okpala D.C., Aniekwu AN. Causes of High Costs of Construction in Nigeria. Journal of

Construction Engineering and Management. ASCE 114 (1988) 233-44.

16. Ogulana S.O., Promkuntong K., JearKJirm V. Construction Delays in a Fast-growingEconomy: Comparing Thailand with other economies. International Journal of ProjectManagement. 14-1 (1996) 37-45.

17. Real Estate Directory of Kolkata, 2002.

18. Simister S. Case Study Methodology for Construction Management Research. Proc. of

the 11th Annual ARCOM Conf., Assoc. of Researchers in Construction Management.

York, U. K., 18-20 Sept 1995, 21-32.

39


40/43

19. Sullivan A, Harris F.C. Delays on Large Construction Projects. International Journal ofOperations and Production Management. 6-1 (1986) 25-33.

20. Tenth Five Year Plan (2002-07), Planning Commission, Government of India.

40


41/43

Assignment Writing

The following is designed to assist students with the process of researching and writing up anassignment for the first time. Several steps in the process of assignment writing can beidentified.

Steps in writing an assignment

The main steps in writing an assignment are:

1. Analysing the question or defining the topic2. Identifying and locating resources3. Reading and evaluating the information found4. Planning your assignment5. Writing the first draft6. Asking someone else to read it and suggesting areas for improvement7. Checking spelling and grammar8. Writing the final draft9. Documenting your research

1. Don't leave the assignment to the last minute

Plan your workload so that you have plenty of time to complete your work. Leaving your assignmenttill the last minute may result in resources held by the Information Commons not being available asthey may be out on loan to someone else. This may result in insufficient time to complete theassignment and will increase your stress levels. It may also result in lower marks than you otherwisedeserve.

2. Analysing the question/defining the topic

Always analyse the topic to be presented and ensure that you understand what is required. Break itdown into key terms and define them using a specific subject dictionary if possible.

3. Gathering resources

Sources of information can be gathered from

Catalogue searches Reference books are good as a starting point and often have lists of valuable further

references to look up CD-ROM and Web based electronic resources

Internet searches Lecture notes Subject guides from the Holmesglen Information Commons Homepage Bibliographies and lists of references in the books and articles which you read Interviewing people and conducting surveys Personal research

4. Evaluating the information found

Review the introductions, abstracts or summaries of articles to confirm their relevance to yourtopic.

Reject inappropriate or unrelated references to avoid wasted time in reading. Select a few general references and read them carefully to obtain an overview of the

information available.

41


42/43

Keep track of your sources of information. Store any photocopies of papers and keep citationsfor all materials used.

5. Planning your assignment

Write an outline which includes main headings and subheadings.

Many word processing applications allow you to write an outline and then expand it into a fulldocument. Later, the outline can form the basis for the table of contents. You should learn to use aword processing application like Microsoft Word and learn to use the features available for preparinglarge documents.

6. Writing the first draft

Once you have an outline, write a first draft. Don't worry too much about getting every point exactly correct. There will be time when you

revise the draft to check the accuracy of the detail. When you have a complete draft, use the word count facility to check the length.

If the draft is too short, you can expand main points, add more background information orintroduce more information from further research. If the draft is too long, you can cut out repetitive information and try to replace long winded

sentences with more concise wording.

7. Document your sources of information

Make sure that you have documented all your sources of information.

Where you are quoting from a particular source or referring to a particular author's works you mustreference these sources properly and include them in a Reference list.

Checklist

Once you have written the first draft, included the references, and fixed up the detail, you should runthrough the following checklist.

Does the essay answer the question or deal with the topic that was set? Does it cover all the main aspects in sufficient depth? Is the content accurate and relevant? Is the material logically arranged? Is each main point well supported by examples and argument? Do you acknowledge all sources and references? Have you kept to the required length? Have you checked grammar, punctuation and spelling?

Structure of Assignments

An assignment will usually include the following components

Title Page

Table of Contents- (can be generated automatically by many word processing applicationssuch as Microsoft Word.)

Introduction - should introduce the assignment topic and outline the purpose of theassignment, including the issues which will be addressed.

Body - the main part of the assignment Conclusion - summarises the main points raised in the body of the assignment. The

conclusion should be based on the arguments presented in, or the content of, the body of the

42


43/43

assignment. Draw conclusions based on the information reviewed, refer to the purposeoutlined in the introduction and demonstrate that the purpose has been achieved.

References or Bibliography. Appendices (if any)

References

References must be provided for content which originates elsewhere whether the content is quoteddirectly or indirectly.

A direct quote, table, list, figure or diagram used from another text must also include the specific pagefrom which the item or quotation is taken.

There is a subtle difference between a bibliography and a reference list. A reference list includes onlythose references which have been cited in the assignment. A bibliography may include additionalrelated material which has not been specifically cited in the assignment.

Do not rely too heavily on a single source of information. Use texts, journals, videos, databases, theInternet and other sources where appropriate.

The Internet can provide up-to-date information, but it can also provide misinformation.

Long Paper

Documents

Transcript of Long Paper