Time overruns

Factors responsible for Time Overruns in Execution of

Construction Projects in India

byBhalchandra Shyamkant Tankkar

Department of Civil EngineeringV.N.I.T. Nagpur, (India)

Contents

INTRODUCTION

Background of construction sector

Status of Infrastructure

Projects in India

Details of the projects facing time

overruns

Need for study

LITERATURE REVIEW

Defining Time Overruns

Classification of Delay

Past studies on Time overruns

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Design

Questionnaire Design

Data Collection

Contents

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

Demographic details of respondents

Data CollectionDemographic details of

respondentsTesting reliability of dataRanking of Factors based

on RIIANOVA

Principal Component factor Analysis

Comparisons with other countries

CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions of the study

Recommendations for mitigating top three

factors

FUTURE SCOPE

Areas for further study

Background of Construction sector

Role of construction sector

• Construction industry is the second employer and contributor in India after the Agriculture industry

• It accounts for second highest inflow of FDI and is valued at over USD 126 billion (Source: http://makeinindia.com/sector/construction/)

Investment in infrastructure & construction

• ₹ 55,74,663 crores to be invested in infrastructure during the Twelfth Five Year Plan period( 2012-2017) (Source: Infrastructure Statistics 2014, Central Statistics Office, MoSPI)

Challenges

• Cost and time overruns are the major issues faced by the sector

Status of Infrastructure Projects in India

The monitoring of public projects in India is done by Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation (MoSPI)

As per the 346 Flash Report of August 2014 released by the Ministry of Statistics, out of 720 central sector infrastructure sector projects costing ₹ 150 crore and above, 295 projects were facing time overruns

Original cost of the 295 delayed projects is ₹ 5,48,838 crore and anticipated cost is ₹ 6,50,274 crore, thus leading to a total cost overrun of ₹ 1,01,436 crore

Details of the projects facing time overruns

Time Overrun No. of projects

Less than 12 months 62Between 13 to 24 months 66Between 25 to 60 months 98More than 60 months 69

21%

22%

33%

23%

Less than 12 monthsBetween 13 to 24 monthsBetween 25 to 60 monthsMore than 60 months

SECTORWISE DETAILS OF PROJECTS FACING TIME OVERRUNS

SectorNo. of

Projects delayed

Road 92

Railways 32

Petroleum 43

Power 64

Coal 34

Atomic Power 4

Steel 16

Road 32%

Rail-ways 11%

Petroleum15%

Power22%

Coal12%

Atomic Power

1%

Steel6%

Projects delayed in different sectors

Worst hit projects

Bankura-Damodar gauge conversion project of South Eastern Railways

• Initial cost estimated for was ₹ 111.9 crore in 2001• Now estimated to cost the exchequer ₹ 2,371.85 crore

Gondia-Jabalpur stretch gauge conversion project undertaken by South East Central Railway• Original cost was ₹ 386 crore and the project was to be completed in 1998• Now expected to be completed in 2019, a delay of 21 years and to cost ₹

590.63 crore

G1 and GS-15 oilfield project of ONGC off Andhra coast

• Cost overrun of 820 %• Delay of more than 9 years

Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd's shaft project at its Adriyala mine

• Cost overrun of 479 % • Delay of more than 2 years

NEED FOR STUDY

Services provided by infrastructure projects serve as input for other sectors

Due to delays in project implementation, people have to wait for the provision of public goods and services longer than necessary

Most infrastructure projects in India are funded by taxpayers’ money

Existing literature reveals that the underlying causes, and thus the remedies, differ from country to country

Defining Time Overruns

The time overrun variable is defined as the difference between the estimated project duration and the actual time taken to complete the project.

Mathematical representation

• Net duration=Date of project commencement −Date of project approval• Time overrun= Net duration − Project duration

In other words, time overrun may also be defined as the delays beyond the date for completion specified by the contract or beyond the extended contract period where an extension of time has been granted.

Delays have potential to result in disputes and claims leading to arbitration or litigation

Classification of Delay

Delays

Ahmed et al. (2003)

Internal causesThese arise from the parties to the contract (e.g. contractor,

client, and consultant)

External causes: These, on the other hand, arise from events beyond the control of the parties. They include the act of God, government action,

and material suppliers

Bolton (1990)

Excusable but non-compensable delay These are delays caused by occurrences which are not

attributable to any of the parties.

Compensable delay These delays result from acts or omissions of the owner or

someone for whose acts an owner is liable

Inexcusable delay These delays result from a contractor's own fault or his

subcontractors or material suppliers

PAST STUDIES ON TIME OVERRUNSRuqaishi and Bashir (2014)-

Oman

Poor site management

Problems with subcontractors

Inadequate planning and scheduling

Marzouk and El-Rasas (2014)

Egypt

Finance and payments of

completed work by owner

Delay in revising and approving

design documents by owner

Ineffective planning and scheduling of

project

Shortage of construction

materials in market

Mistakes and discrepancies in

design documents

Kaliba et al (2009)

Zambia

Delayed payments

Financial processes and

difficulties on the part of

contractors and clients

Contract modification

Problems in materials

procurement

Changes in drawings

Sweis et al (2008)

Jordan

Presence of unskilled labors

Shortage of technical professionals in the

contractors organization

. Improper technical study by the contractor

Poor planning and scheduling of the

project by the contractor

Too many change orders from owner

PAST STUDIES ON TIME OVERRUNSLo et al (2006)

Hong Kong

Lack of running capital

Unforeseen ground

conditions

Exceptionally low bids

Inexperienced contractors

Works in conflict with

existing structures/

utilities

Sambasivan and Soon (2006)

Malaysia

Contractor’s improper planning

Contractor’s poor site

management

Inadequate contractor

experience

Inadequate client’s finance


Faridi and El-Sayegh (2006)

UAE

Slow preparation and approval of

drawings

Inadequate early planning of the

project

Slowness of owner’s decision

making

Shortage of manpower

Poor site management and

supervision

Low productivity of manpower

Koushkiet al (2005)

Kuwait

Changing orders

Owners’ financial constraints

Owners’ lack of experience in the

construction business

PAST STUDIES ON TIME OVERRUNS

Frimpong et al (2003)

Ghana

Improper Planning and scheduling

Shortages of technical personnel

Bad weather and Unexpected geological conditions

Research Design

Literature Review

Identify factors from literature

review

Discussions with

professionals from industry

Obtain opinions from professionals

Compare the most important

factors

Finalize factors to be used in

questionnaire

Preparation of questionnaireData collection

Data Analysis Compilation of results

Drawing out conclusion

Propose suitable

mitigation measures

Factors identifiedFactor causing time overrun Source

Poor site management and supervision

Elinwa, Odeh, Faridi, Fugar, Mydin, Rwakarehe, Aibinu

Poor Site management Al-Najjar, Kaliba, Sweis, Doloi, Le-Hoai, Ruqaishi, Danso

Rework due to frequent design changes or mistakes in construction

Kaming, Assaf, Odeh, Elinwa, Frimpong , Kaliba, Gardezi, Faridi

Unrealistic project duration given by the client

Odeh, Faridi, Fugar, Rwakarehe, Elinwa,

Delay in handing over the site to the contractor

Assaf, Frimpong , Kaming, Sambasivan, Le-Hoai, Doloi, Marzouk

Factors identified

Factor causing time overrun Source

Delay in financing and payment of running bills

Frimpong, Omoregie, Lo, Fugar, Gardezi , Dolage, Mizanur

Lack of co-ordination or communication between the parties

Odeh, Koushki, Iyer, Le-Hoai,Sambasivan, Ruqaishi, Doloi

Bad weather conditions Kaming, Assaf, Iyer, Apolot, Gardezi, Dolage

Shortage of human resources Assaf, Chan, Odeh, Faridi, Danso, Sweis,Dolage, Rwakarehe

Shortage of materials Chan, Omoregie, Faridi, Lo,Sambasivan, LeHoai, Danso, Rwakarehe

Questionnaire Design

• Section 1: General details• Section 2: Opinion regarding Factors responsible for

time overruns

Questionnaire consisted of two

parts

• Type of Organization• Work zone in India• Experience in years• Cost of current project

Section 1: General details

• The second section asked the respondent about his opinion for a given factor. The respondents were asked to select any one of the given options viz. Agree, Partially Agree, Partially Disagree and Disagree

Section 2: Respondent

Opinion

Data Collection

190 copies of the questionnaire were distributed among construction personnel engaged in works across India through e-mail and sometimes hard copies were circulated

The questionnaire was distributed to a random sample of 64 clients, 32 consultants and 94 contractors

85 sets of questionnaires were received after follow up

The overall response rate was found to be around 45%

Data Collection

Respondent typeNo. of

questionnaires distributed

No. of questionnaires

receivedResponse

rate

Clients 64 33 52%Consultants 32 10 31%Contractors 94 42 44%

All respondents 190 85 45%

Client Consultant Contractor All respondents0

20406080

100120140160180200

Responses received

DistributedReceived

Respondent type

No

. of

qu

es

tio

nn

air

es

Demographic Details of Respondents

• Respondent profile based on type of organization

Type of Organization

No. of responses

% of Total

Client33 39%

Consultant10 12%

Contractor42 49%

Client39%

Consultant12%

Contractor49%

Respondent profile based on type of Organiza-tion

Demographic Details of Respondents• Respondent profile based on working Region/Zone

in India Region/Zone

In IndiaNo. of

Respondents% of Total

East 5 6%

West 47 56%

Central 13 15%

North 7 8%

South 13 15%

East6%

West 55%

Central15%

North8%

South 15%

Respondent profile based on Zone/Region

Demographic Details of Respondents• Cross section of respondent profile based on Type of

Organization and Working Zone in India

Client

Consultant

Contractor

North 2 1 4

South 2 2 9

East -- 1 4

West 24 4 19

Central 5 2 6

North South East West Central0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2 20

24

5

12

1

42

4

9

4

19

6

Client Consultant Contractor

Demographic Details of RespondentsRespondent profile based on Experience

Experience of Respondents

No. of Respondents

% of Total

0 to 5 years 56 66%5 to 10 years 14 17%

10 to 15 years 2 2%15 to 20 years 6 7%

More than 20 years 7 8%

0-5 years66%

5-10 years16%

10-15 years

2% 15- 20 years

7%

more than 20 years8%

Respondent profile based on experience

Demographic Details of Respondents• Respondent profile based on Cost of current project

Cost of current project

Number of respondents

% of Total

Less than ₹ 10 cr 23 27%

Between ₹ 10 crto ₹50 cr 28 33%

Between ₹ 50 crto ₹100 cr 19 22%

More than ₹ 100 cr 15 18%

less than ₹ 10 crore27%

₹ 10 crore to

50 ₹crore33%

₹ 50 crore to ₹100

crore22%

more than

₹ 100 crore18%

Respondent profile based on cost of current project

Notation of factors

T1

• Inadequate experience of the contractor

T2

• Poor site management and supervision

T3

• Rework due to frequent design changes

T4

• Unrealistic project duration given by the client

T5

• Delay in handling over the site to contractor

T6

• Delay in financing and payment of running bills

T7

• Lack of co-ordination or communication between parties

T8

• Bad weather conditions

T9

• Shortage of human resourcesT10

• Shortage of materials

Response pattern- All Respondents

T7

T8

T1

T4

T5

T10

T3

T2

T6

T9

44

45

46

47

47

49

48

51

60

73

46

44

21

26

35

33

44

40

16

22

9

5

9

16

11

12

5

7

18

5

1

6

24

11

7

6

4

2

6

1

Agree Partially agree PartiallydisagreeDisagree No Idea

Coding the data

In order to code the data for purpose of calculating required parameters, the responses were coded using a four point Likert Scale

Response Weight assigned

Agree 4

Partially Agree 3

Partially Disagree 2

Disagree 1

No Idea Response not considered for analysis

Testing Reliability of Data

Reliability Analysis– The data collected was then tested for its reliability

by determination of Cronbach Alpha

Where,– α = Cronbach alpha– N= number of items– v = average inter-item covariance among the items– c = average variance

Testing Reliability of Data

• Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient normally ranges between 0 and 1.

• As per statisticians Gliem J. and Gliem R., (2003) the following rules of thumb may be followed:

• For the current study the Cronbach alpha value obtained was α = 0.705

Cronbach alpha value (α ) Reliability of data

α > 9 Excellent

9 > α > 8 Good

8 > α > 7 Acceptable

7 > α > 6 Poor

6 > α >5 Questionable

5 > α Discard the data

Relative Importance Index

• Relative Importance Index: – The term relative importance refers to the contribution a

variable makes to the prediction of a criterion variable by itself and in combination with other predictor variables.

– where,• A= highest weight given• N= total number of respondents for a given factor • ai = constant expressing the weight given to the ith response• i= 1,2,3,4• fi = the variable expressing the frequency of the ith response

Overall Ranking of Factors

Factors causing time overruns MeanStd.

Deviation RII Rank

Shortage of human resources- skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled (T9) 3.68 0.561 0.920 1

Poor site management (T2) 3.39 0.725 0.848 2

Lack of co-ordination or communication between parties (T7) 3.32 0.694 0.830 3

Delay in financing and payment of running bills (T6) 3.31 0.964 0.826 4

Bad weather conditions (T8) 3.29 0.815 0.823 5

Shortage of materials on site (T10) 3.26 0.888 0.815 6

Rework due to frequent design changes (T3) 3.25 0.815 0.813 7

Unrealistic project duration given by client (T4) 3.09 1.031 0.773 8

Delay in handing over site to the contractor (T5) 2.98 1.134 0.745 9

Inadequate experience of Contractor (T1) 2.89 1.225 0.723 10

Ranking of factors by Clients

Factors causing time overruns Mean Std. Deviation RII Rank





Bad weather conditions (T8) 3.27 0.517 0.818 5Shortage of materials on site (T10) 3.21 0.857 0.803 6





Ranking of factors by ConsultantsFactors causing time overruns Mean Std.

Deviation RII Rank









Shortage of materials on site (T10) 2.70 0.949 0.675 9

Bad weather conditions (T8) 2.60 0.966 0.650 10

Ranking of factors by Contractors

Factors causing time overruns Mean Std. Deviation RII Rank





Bad weather conditions (T8) 3.60 1.231 0.865 5Lack of co-ordination or communication between parties (T7) 3.43 0.590 0.858 6

Shortage of materials on site (T10) 3.43 0.859 0.858 6Poor site management (T2) 3.24 0.759 0.810 8



ANOVA

One way ANOVA test can be used when we want to compare means of more than two groups of an independent variable

Null Hypothesis (Ho) – There is no significant difference among construction professionals in opinion for time overrun factor from different regions of India.

Alternate Hypothesis (H1) - There is significant difference among construction professionals in opinion for time overrun factor from different regions of India.

ANOVAFactors responsible for time overruns Variance Sum of

Squaresdf Mean Square F Sig.

1. Inadequate experience of contractor

Between Groups 10.429 4 2.6071.804 .136Within Groups 115.619 80 1.445

Total 126.047 842. Poor site management and supervision

Between Groups 1.173 4 .293.546 .703Within Groups 43.015 80 .538

Total 44.188 843. Rework due to frequent design change or mistakes in construction

Between Groups 5.370 4 1.3432.129 .085Within Groups 50.441 80 .631

Total 55.812 844. Unrealistic project duration given by client

Between Groups 2.813 4 .703.651 .628Within Groups 86.434 80 1.080

Total 89.247 845. Delay in handing over site to contractor

Between Groups .993 4 .248.186 .945Within Groups 106.960 80 1.337

Total 107.953 846. Delay in financing and payment of running bills for completed works

Between Groups 1.913 4 .478.503 .734Within Groups 76.134 80 .952

Total 78.047 847. Lack of coordination and communication between parties

Between Groups .103 4 .026.051 .995Within Groups 40.320 80 .504

Total 40.424 848. Bad weather or environmental conditions

Between Groups 5.308 4 1.3272.104 .088Within Groups 49.835 79 .631

Total 55.143 839. Shortage of human resources Between Groups .819 4 .205

.640 .636Within Groups 25.604 80 .320Total 26.424 84

10. Shortage of materials Between Groups .419 4 .105.127 .972Within Groups 65.887 80 .824

Total 66.306 84

Interpreting ANOVA Results

Factors responsible for time overruns

Observed value of F statistic

Fobs

Observed value of

significancesigobs

Check for significance;

Whether sigobs >0.05

Maximum value of F statistic

Fmax

Check for F statistic;WhetherFobs< Fmax

Remark(Accept H0 OR Reject

H0)

1. Inadequate experience of contractor 1.804 0.136 Yes 2.486 Yes Accept H0

2. Poor site management and supervision 0.546 0.703 Yes 2.486 Yes Accept H0

3. Rework due to frequent design change or mistakes in construction 2.129 0.085 Yes 2.486 Yes Accept H0

4. Unrealistic project duration given by client 0.651 0.628 Yes 2.486 Yes Accept H0

5. Delay in handing over site to contractor 0.186 0.945 Yes 2.486 Yes Accept H0

6. Delay in financing and payment of running bills for completed works 0.503 0.734 Yes 2.486 Yes Accept H0

7. Lack of coordination and communication between parties 0.051 0.995 Yes 2.486 Yes Accept H0

8. Bad weather or environmental conditions 2.104 0.088 Yes 2.486 Yes Accept H0

9. Shortage of human resources 0.640 0.636 Yes 2.486 Yes Accept H0

10. Shortage of materials 0.127 0.972 Yes 2.486 Yes Accept H0

Inference from ANOVA

From the results of ANOVA it can be concluded that the null hypothesis can be accepted

There is no significant difference between the opinions of the professionals from different zones of the country about the time overrun factors

Principal Component Factor Analysis

It is a technique used for reducing large number of variables to a small number of components or factors

Generally used in order to classify variables or for detecting a possible structure in relationship between the variables

Carrying out Principal Component Factor Analysis

Initial examination• Determinant• KMO test• Test of sphericity

Extraction of Factors without Rotation

Check for logical grouping of factors Apply suitable

rotation and extract factors

Initial examinationCorrelation Matrixa

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10T1-Inadequate experience of contractor 1.000

T2-Poor site management and supervision .463 1.000

T3-Rework due to frequent design change or mistakes in construction .337 .496 1.000

T4-Unrealistic project duration given by client -.388 .111 .115 1.000

T5-Delay in handing over site to contractor -.356 .075 -.017 .750 1.000

T6-Delay in financing and payment of running bills for completed works -.357 .128 .169 .645 .647 1.000

T7-Lack of co-ordination and communication between parties .111 .207 .309 .307 .258 .339 1.000

T8-Bad weather or environmental conditions -.113 -.023 .114 .253 .311 .090 .261 1.000

T9- Shortage of human resources -.033 .038 -.094 .363 .283 .244 .113 .229 1.000T10- Shortage of materials -.129 -.019 .133 .326 .259 .249 .316 .482 .379 1.000a. Determinant = .025

Initial examination

The correlation coefficient 0.025 is

considered as sufficient (> 0.00001), which

indicates that none of the two matrices have multi

collinearity or singularity.

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of

sampling adequacy was found to be 0.677 (> 0.50)

as well as the value of Chi-square for.

Bartlett test of sphericity (test of identity matrix) was 291.640 at 0.001 level of significance

These measures confirmed the suitability

of the data for proceeding to factor

analysis

Extraction of factors

The basic concept underlying the Principal Components Factor Analysis (PCFA) is that the extracted components explain most of the variance of the correlated variables

The factor analysis can extract common factors equal to or less than the number of variables involved

The significant factors are those whose eigen values are greater than or equal to 1

Eigen value is a measure of how a standard variable adds to the principal components

Total Variance ExplainedTotal Variance Explained

ComponentInitial Eigen values

Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Total% of

VarianceCumulative

% Total% of

VarianceCumulative

%1 3.271 32.712 32.712 3.271 32.712 32.7122 2.012 20.121 52.833 2.012 20.121 52.8333 1.288 12.880 65.713 1.288 12.880 65.7134 .917 9.174 74.8865 .676 6.760 81.6466 .589 5.891 87.5387 .411 4.109 91.6478 .333 3.330 94.9779 .320 3.198 98.175

10 .183 1.825 100.000Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Extraction of factors without rotationComponent Matrixa

Component1 2 3

1. Inadequate experience of contractor .742

2. Poor site management and supervision .786

3. Rework due to frequent design change or mistakes in construction .779

4. Unrealistic project duration given by client .855

5. Delay in handing over site to contractor .818

6. Delay in financing and payment of running bills for completed works .768

7. Lack of co-ordination and communication between parties .501

8. Bad weather or environmental conditions .623

9. Shortage of human resources .495

10. Shortage of materials .593

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.a. 3 components extracted.

Extraction of factors After applying RotationRotated Component Matrixa

Component1 2 3

1. Inadequate experience of contractor .6632. Poor site management and supervision .8243. Rework due to frequent design change or mistakes in construction .799

4. Unrealistic project duration given by client .8545. Delay in handing over site to contractor .8416. Delay in financing and payment of running bills for completed works .8677. Lack of co-ordination and communication between parties .281

8. Bad weather or environmental conditions .7969. Shortage of human resources .55710. Shortage of materials .824

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization

a. Rotation converged in 4 iterations.

Inferences from result of Principal Component Factor Analysis

Factors extracted • The three components obtained were named as CFT 1, CFT 2 and CFT 3

CFT 1Client controlled factors

• Delay in financing and payment of running bills for completed works,

• Unrealistic project duration given by client• Delay in handing over site to contractor

CFT 2Contractor controlled

factors

• Poor site management and supervision, • Rework due to frequent design change or mistakes

in construction, • Inadequate experience of contractor• Lack of co-ordination and communication

CFT 3Planning related factors

• Shortage of materials, • Shortage of human resources

Comparison with other countriesCountry Major factors for time overruns

1 2 3 4 5

India (This study) Shortage of manpower


Lack of co-ordination or communication between the parties

Delay in Financing and payment of running bills

Bad weather conditions

Oman (Ruqaishi,2014)

Poor site management and supervision by contractors


Inadequate planning and scheduling of projects by contractors

Poor management of contractors’ schedules

Delay in delivery of materials,

Egypt (Marzouk, 2014)

Finance and payments of completed work by owner

Late in revising and approving design documents by owner

Owner interference Suspension of work,Mistakes and discrepancies in design documents

Tanzania (Rwakarehe, 2014) Inadequate design Change in the scope

of the projectChange in government policies

Delay in payment to contractors which results in interests

Inclement weather

Bangladesh (Mizanur, 2014)

Rapid increase in price of construction materials

Political situation (revolution/ public strikes)

Incompetent/and immature subcontractors

Poor financial condition of contractors

Frequent design changes

Uganda (Alinaitwe, 2013)

Changes in the work scope

Delayed payments to contractors

Poor monitoring and control

High inflation and interest rates.


Sri Lanka (D.A.R. Dolage, 2013)

Delay in progress payment by clients, by contractors

Inaccurate planning and scheduling of projects

Rainy weather,Unavailability of experienced technical staff

Excessive work in hand of the contractors

Comparison with other countriesCountry

Major factors for time overruns1 2 3 4 5

Iran (Towhid Pourrostam, 2011)

Delay in progress payments by client

Change orders by client during Construction

Poor site managementSlowness in decision making process by client

Financial difficulties by contractor

Ghana (Fugar, 2010) Delay in honouring payment certificates

Underestimation of cost of projects

Underestimation of complexity of projects

Difficulty in accessing Bank credit Poor supervision

Libya (Tumi, 2009) Improper Planning Lack of Effective Communication Design Errors Shortage of materials

i.e. steel, concrete, Slow Decision Making

Vietnam (Long Le-Hoai, 2008)

Poor site management and supervision

Poor project management assistance

Financial difficulties of owner

Financial difficulties of contractor Design changes

Malaysia (Sambasivan, 2007) Improper planning Poor site management Inadequate contractor

experience

Inadequate client’s finance and payments for completed work


Jordan (Sweis, 2007)Financial difficulties faced by the contractor

Too many change orders from owner

Poor planning and scheduling of the project by the contractor

Presence of unskilled labour

Shortage of technical professionals in the contractor’s organization

Hong Kong (Tommy Y. Lo, 2006)

Inadequate resources due to contractor/lack of running capital

Unforeseen ground conditions Exceptionally low bids Inexperienced

contractors

Works in conflict with existing structures/ utilities

UAE (Faridi, 2006) Preparation and approval of drawings

Slowness of the owner’s decision-making process


Poor supervision and Inadequate early planning of the project


Nigeria (Aibinu, 2006) Contractors’ financial difficulties

Clients’ cash flow problem

Architects’ incomplete drawing

Subcontractor’s slow mobilization

Equipment break-down and maintenance problem

Kuwait (Koushki, 2005) Change orders Financial constraints Contractor’s lack of

experience Shortage of materials Weather conditions

Conclusions

The professionals across India share by and large a similar opinion about the factors responsible for time overruns in execution of construction projects.

Lack of human resources emerged as the most significant factor and had the highest degree of agreement among all the parties involved in construction.

Poor site management emerged as the second most significant factor and reflected an agreement between the clients and consultants but the contractors differed in opinion.

Lack of coordination or communication between the construction parties was the third most significant factor in the view of all the three parties.

The factors ‘Delay in financing and payment of running bills’, ‘Unrealistic project duration given by client’, ‘Delay in handing over site to the contractor’ and ‘Inadequate experience of Contractor’ had a very high degree of disagreement between clients and contractors. This indicates a trust deficit between the client and contractor.

‘Bad weather conditions’’ were moderately significant for both the client and contractor but consultants considered it least significant. This indicates that the consultants more often do not consider external factors during planning.

Mitigation Measures

• Framework for overcoming Shortage of human resources

Mitigation Measures• Framework for overcoming Poor site management

Mitigation Measures

• Framework for overcoming Poor co-ordination and communication between construction parties

Future Scope

Systematic studies are required to be undertaken to determine the effectiveness of mitigation measures in order to improvise them further and develop suitable models that can help preventing the factors inhibiting time overruns.

There is a need of sector specific studies as generalization comes at a cost and may not reflect certain characteristics that are endemic to a particular sector.

An attempt can be made to develop regression models relating time overruns to cost escalation in order to estimate the impact of time overruns on the cost performance of the project.

Further studies need to undertaken in order to understand how modern construction management techniques like lean construction or relational contracts can help to mitigate the factors responsible for time overruns

References• Central Statistical Office, Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation, New Delhi, “Infrastructure Statistics -

2014,” vol. I, 2014.• R. Singh, “Delays and Cost Overruns in Infrastructure Projects : Extent , Causes and Remedies,” Economics and

Political Weekly, vol. xlv, no. 21, pp. 43–54, 2010.• P. F. Kaming, P. O. Olomolaiye, G. D. Holt, and F. C. Harris, “Factors influencing construction time and cost overruns

on high-rise projects in Indonesia,” Construction Management and Economics, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 83–94, 1997.• J. Al-Najjar, “Factors influencing time and cost overruns on construction projects in the Gaza Strip,” Islamic

University of Gaza, 2008.• Z. M. Kraiem, “Concurrent Delays in Construction Projects,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,

vol. 113, no. 4, pp. 591–602, 1988.• S. A. Assaf, M. Al-Khalil, and M. Al-Hazmi, “Causes of Delay in Large Building Construction Projects,” Journal of

Management in Engineering, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 45–50, 1995.• D. W. M. Chan and M. M. Kumaraswamy, “An evaluation of construction time performance in the building industry,”

Building and Environment, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 569–578, 1996.• A. U. Elinwa and M. Joshua, “Time-Overrun Factors in Nigerian Construction Industry,” Journal of Construction

Engineering and Management, vol. 127, no. 5, pp. 419–425, 2001.• A. M. Odeh and H. T. Battaineh, “Causes of construction delay: Traditional contracts,” International Journal of

Project Management, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 67–73, 2001.• Y. Frimpong, J. Oluwoye, and L. Crawford, “Causes of delay and cost overruns in construction of groundwater

projects in a developing countries; Ghana as a case study,” International Journal of Project Management, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 321–326, 2003.

• P. A. Koushki, K. Al Rashid, and N. Kartam, “Delays and cost increases in the construction of private residential projects in Kuwait,” Construction Management and Economics, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 285–294, 2005.

• A Omoregie and D. Radford, “Infrastructure delays and cost escalation: causes and effects in Nigeria,” Proceeding of sixth International Postgraduate Research Conference. Netherlands, Delft University of Technology, pp. 79–93, 2006.

References• A. S. Faridi and S. M. El Sayegh, “Significant factors causing delay in the UAE construction industry,”

Construction Management and Economics, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 1167–1176, 2006.• K. C. Iyer and K. N. Jha, “Critical Factors Affecting Schedule Performance: Evidence from Indian

Construction Projects,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 132, no. 8, pp. 871–881, 2006.

• T. Y. Lo, I. W. Fung, and K. C. Tung, “Construction Delays in Hong Kong Civil Engineering Projects,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 132, no. 6, pp. 636–649, 2006.

• E. C. Ubani, K. A. Okorocha and S. C. Emeribe, “Analysis of factors influencing time and cost overruns on construction projects in south eastern nigeria.,” International Journal of Management Sciences and Business Research, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 73-84, 2007.

• M. Sambasivan and Y. W. Soon, “Causes and effects of delays in Malaysian construction industry,” International Journal of Project Management, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 517–526, 2007.

• L. Le-Hoai, Y. D. Lee, and J. Y. Lee, “Delay and cost overruns in Vietnam large construction projects: A comparison with other selected countries,” KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 367–377, 2008.

• M. Ruqaishi and H. A. Bashir, “Causes of Delay in Construction Projects in the Oil and Gas Industry in the Gulf Cooperation Council Countries : A Case Study,” Journal of Management in Engineering, pp. 1–8, 2009.

• C. Kaliba, M. Muya, and K. Mumba, “Cost escalation and schedule delays in road construction projects in Zambia,” International Journal of Project Management, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 522–531, 2009.

• S. A. H. Tumi, A. Omran, and A. H. K. Pakir, “Causes of Delay in Construction Industry in Libya,” International Conference on Economics and Administration, University of Bucharest, Romania, pp. 265–272, 2009.

References• McKinsey and Company, “Building India-Accelerating Infrastructure projects,” 2009.• F. D. K. Fugar and A. B. Agyakwah-baah, “Delays in Building Construction Projects in,” Australasian Journal of Construction

Economics and Building, vol. 10, no. 1/2, pp. 103–116, 2010.• N. Hamzah, M. A. Khoiry, I. Arshad, N. M. Tawil, and A. I. Che Ani, “Cause of construction delay - Theoretical framework,”

Procedia Engineering, vol. 20, pp. 490–495, 2011.• I. A. R. Aftab Hameed Memon Mohd Razaki abdullah, Ade Asmi Abdul Aziz, “Time Overrun in Construction Projects from the

Perspective of Project Management Consultant (PMC),” Journal of Surveying, Construction and Property, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 54-66, 2011.

• T. Pourrostam and A. Ismail, “Significant Factors Causing and Effects of Delay in Iranian Construction Projects.,” IACSIT International Journal of Engineering and Technology, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 450–456, 2012.

• H. Doloi, A. Sawhney, K. C. Iyer, and S. Rentala, “Analysing factors affecting delays in Indian construction projects,” International Journal of Project Management, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 479–489, 2012.

• K. A. Mohammed, “Causes of Delay in Nigeria Construction Industry,” Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 785–794, 2012.

• K. Wong and V. Vimonsatit, “A study of the factors affecting construction time in Western Australia,” Scientific Research and Essays, vol. 7, no. 40, pp. 3390–3398, 2012.

• H. Danso and J. K. Antwi, “Evaluation of the Factors Influencing Time and Cost Overruns in Telecom Tower Construction in Ghana,” Civil and Environmental Research, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 15–25, 2012.

• O. E. A. and A. Akinsulire, “Stakeholders’ Perception of the Causes and Effect of Construction Delays on Project Delivery,” KICEM Journal of Construction Engineering and Project Management, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 25–31, 2012.

• R. Apolot and D. Tindiwensi, “Investigation into the Causes of Delays and Cost Overruns in Uganda’s Public Sector Construction Projects,” Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 33–47, 2013.

• M. Desai and R. Bhatt, “Critical Causes of Delay in Residential Construction Projects : Case Study of Central Gujarat Region of India,” International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technolog, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 762–768, 2013.

• I. Mahamid, “Common risks affecting time overrun in road construction projects in palestine: Contractors’ perspective,” Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 45–53, 2013.

• S. S. S. Gardezi, I. A. Manarvi, and S. J. S. Gardezi, “Time Extension Factors in Construction Industry of Pakistan,” Procedia Engineering, vol. 77, pp. 196–204, 2014.

• G. J. Sweis, R. Sweis, M. A. Rumman, R. A. Hussein, and S. E. Dahiya, “Cost Overruns in Public Construction Projects: The Case of Jordan,” International Journal of Project Management, vol.26, pp. 665-674, 2008.

Time overruns

Engineering

Transcript of Time overruns