Printer Friendly

Factors affecting the performance of construction projects in the Gaza Strip/Veiksniai, lemiantys statybos projektu igyvendinima Gazos Ruoze.

1. Introduction

Throughout the world, the business environment within which construction organizations operate continues to change rapidly. Organizations failing to adapt and respond to the complexity of the new environment tend to experience survival problems (Lee et al. 2001). With increasing higher users' requirements, environmental awareness and limited resources on one side, and high competition for construction business marketplace on the other side, contractors have to be capable of continuously improving their performance (Samson Samson, in the Bible, judge of Israel. His long hair was a symbol of his vows to God, and because of this covenant Samson was strong. The enemies of his people, the Philistines, accomplished his destruction through the woman Delilah.  and Lema 2005).

A number of studies have been conducted to examine factors impacting on project performance in developing countries. Faridi and El-Sayegh (2006) reported that shortage of skills of manpower, poor supervision and poor site management, unsuitable leadership, shortage and breakdown of equipment among others contribute to construction delays in the United Arab Emirates United Arab Emirates, federation of sheikhdoms (2005 est. pop. 2,563,000), c.30,000 sq mi (77,700 sq km), SE Arabia, on the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. . Hanson et al. (2003) examined causes of client dissatisfaction in the South African building industry and found that conflict, poor workmanship and incompetence in·com·pe·tence or in·com·pe·ten·cy
n.
1. The quality of being incompetent or incapable of performing a function, as the failure of the cardiac valves to close properly.

2.
 of contractors to be among the factors which would negatively impact on project performance. Mbachu and Nkando (2007) established that quality and attitude to service is one of the key factors constraining con·strain  
tr.v. con·strained, con·strain·ing, con·strains
1. To compel by physical, moral, or circumstantial force; oblige: felt constrained to object. See Synonyms at force.

2.
 successful project delivery in South Africa South Africa, Afrikaans Suid-Afrika, officially Republic of South Africa, republic (2005 est. pop. 44,344,000), 471,442 sq mi (1,221,037 sq km), S Africa. . The performance of contractors in Zambia Zambia (zăm`bēə), officially Republic of Zambia, republic (2005 est. pop. 11,262,000), 290,584 sq mi (752,614 sq km), central Africa.  is apparently below expectation; it is not uncommon to learn of local projects that have not been completed or significantly delayed. This poor performance of many local contractors has huge implications in terms of their competitiveness (Zulu and Chileshe 2008).

The construction industry is complex in its nature because it comprises large numbers of parties as owners (clients), contractors, consultants, stakeholders Stakeholders

All parties that have an interest, financial or otherwise, in a firm-stockholders, creditors, bondholders, employees, customers, management, the community, and the government.
, and regulators. Despite this complexity, the industry plays a major role in the development and achievement of society's goals. It is one of the largest industries and contributes to about 10% of the gross national product (GNP GNP

See: Gross National Product
) in industrialized in·dus·tri·al·ize  
v. in·dus·tri·al·ized, in·dus·tri·al·iz·ing, in·dus·tri·al·iz·es

v.tr.
1. To develop industry in (a country or society, for example).

2.
 countries (Navon 2005). Palestine Palestine, region, Asia
Palestine (păl`əstīn), historic region on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, at various times comprising parts of modern Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, Jordan, and Egypt; also known as the Holy
 is no exception; the local construction industry is one of the main economic engine sectors, supporting the Palestinian national economy. However, many local construction projects report poor performance due to many evidential ev·i·den·tial  
adj. Law
Of, providing, or constituting evidence: evidential material.



ev
 project-specific causes such as: unavailability un·a·vail·a·ble  
adj.
Not available, accessible, or at hand.



una·vail
 of materials; excessive amendments of design and drawings; poor coordination among participants, ineffective monitoring and feedback, and lack of project leadership skills (UNRWA UNRWA United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East  2006). The ever-important macro-level political and economic factors have also been related to poor projects performance (UNRWA 2006 & 2007).

Project performance can be measured and evaluated using a large number of performance indicators that could be related to various dimensions (groups) such as time, cost, quality, client satisfaction, client changes, business performance, health and safety (Cheung et al. 2004; DETR DETR Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
DETR Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (UK)
DETR Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation
 2000). Time, cost and quality are, however, the 3 predominant pre·dom·i·nant  
adj.
1. Having greatest ascendancy, importance, influence, authority, or force. See Synonyms at dominant.

2.
 performance evaluation Performance evaluation

The assessment of a manager's results, which involves, first, determining whether the money manager added value by outperforming the established benchmark (performance measurement) and, second, determining how the money manager achieved the calculated return
 dimensions. Another interesting way of evaluating project performance is through 2 common sets of indicators (Pheng and Chuan 2006). The first set is related to the owner, users, stakeholders, and the general public; the groups of people, who will look at project performance from the macro viewpoint. The second set comprises the developer and the contractor; the groups of people who will look at project performance from the micro viewpoint.

Generally, performance dimensions may have one or more indicators, and could be influenced by various project characteristics. For example, Dissanayaka and Kumaraswamy Kumaraswamy or Kumaraswami may refer to:
  • H. D. Kumaraswamy, present Chief Minister of the state of Karnataka, India
  • Poondi Kumaraswamy (1930–1988), Indian engineer and hydrologist
  • Murugan, also called Kumaraswami
 (1999) found that project time and cost performances get influenced by project characteristics, procurement The fancy word for "purchasing." The procurement department within an organization manages all the major purchases.  system, project team performance, client representation's characteristics, contractor characteristics, design team characteristics, and external conditions. Similarly, Iyer and Jha (2005) identified many factors as having influence on project cost performance, these include: project manager's competence, top management support, project manager's coordinating and leadership skills, monitoring and feedback by the participants, decision-making, coordination among project participants, owners' competence, social condition, economic condition, and climatic condition. Coordination among project participants, however, was identified as the most significant of all the factors, having maximum influence on cost performance. Interestingly, Love et al. (2005) examined project time-cost performance relationship, and their results indicate that cost is a poor predictor of time performance. Elyamany et al. (2007) introduced a performance evaluation model for construction companies in order to provide a proper tool for the company's owners, shareholders and funding agencies to evaluate the performance of construction companies in Egypt Egypt (ē`jĭpt), Arab. Misr, biblical Mizraim, officially Arab Republic of Egypt, republic (2005 est. pop. 77,506,000), 386,659 sq mi (1,001,449 sq km), NE Africa and SW Asia. .

The above examples demonstrate that there is a plethora plethora /pleth·o·ra/ (pleth´ah-rah)
1. an excess of blood.

2. by extension, a red florid complexion.pletho´ric


pleth·o·ra
n.
1.
 of factors with the potential to affect the different dimensions of project performance. As such, this paper builds upon the vast amount of published studies (Cheung et al. 2004; DETR 2000; Karim Karim (alternatively spelt Kareem, Kerim or Kerem) is a common given and surname of Arabic origin. See Karim (name). The Russianized surname Karimov (Каримов) for Central Asians from the former Soviet Union (e.g.  and Marosszeky 1999; Dissanayaka and Kumaraswamy 1999; Ofori et al. 2004; Samson and Lema 2002; Iyer and Jha 2005; Love et al. 2005; UNRWA 2006 & 2007; Ugwu and Haupt In German, Haupt in the broadest sense means something on the top of a hierarchy.

Regarding the human body, the usage of Haupt for the head is considered antiquated or poetic, Kopf
 2007; Enshassi et al. 2007; Alinaitwe et al. 2007) in order to identify a comprehensive list of factors affecting the performance of construction projects. Following this, the paper reports on the findings of a survey targeting project owners, consultants and contractors, in an attempt to shed some light on how each project party perceives the relative importance of these factors. Finally, the paper formulates a number of recommendations in order to bridge the gap between the different perceptions thus improving the level of project performance in the Gaza Strip Gaza Strip (gäz`ə), (2003 est. pop. 1,330,000) rectangular coastal area, c.140 sq mi (370 sq km), SW Asia, on the Mediterranean Sea adjoining Egypt and Israel, in what was formerly SW Palestine. .

2. Methodology

A questionnaire survey was used to elicit e·lic·it  
tr.v. e·lic·it·ed, e·lic·it·ing, e·lic·its
1.
a. To bring or draw out (something latent); educe.

b. To arrive at (a truth, for example) by logic.

2.
 the attitude of owners, consultants, and contractors towards the factors affecting the performance of construction projects in the Gaza Strip. Questionnaires were sent to randomly selected owners, consultants, and contractors. Consultants were identified from the listings of consultants association; the target populations of contractors were companies registered with Palestinian contractors union. 120 questionnaires were distributed as follows: 25 to owners; 35 to consultants; and 60 to contractors. 88 were received (response rate of 73%) as follows: 17 (70%) from owners; 25 (72%) from consultants; and 46 (77%) from contractors as respondents In the context of marketing research, a representative sample drawn from a larger population of people from whom information is collected and used to develop or confirm marketing strategy. . The respondents were asked to indicate, based on their local experience the level of importance of each one of the identified 63 factors of performance on a five-point Likert scale Likert scale A subjective scoring system that allows a person being surveyed to quantify likes and preferences on a 5-point scale, with 1 being the least important, relevant, interesting, most ho-hum, or other, and 5 being most excellent, yeehah important, etc  as: not important, slightly, moderately, very, and extremely important. The questionnaire has been validated val·i·date  
tr.v. val·i·dat·ed, val·i·dat·ing, val·i·dates
1. To declare or make legally valid.

2. To mark with an indication of official sanction.

3.
 by the criterion-related reliability test which measures the correlation coefficient Correlation Coefficient

A measure that determines the degree to which two variable's movements are associated.

The correlation coefficient is calculated as:
 between the factors affecting the performance of construction projects in one field and the whole field, and structure validity test (Spearman spear·man  
n.
A man, especially a soldier, armed with a spear.
 test).

The respondents were experienced construction project managers, site engineers/office engineers, and organizations' managers (with average experience of 20 years in the construction industry). 63 factors believed to affect project performance were considered in this study and were listed under 10 groups based on the literature reviewed (Okuwoga 1998; Dissanayaka and Kumaraswamy 1999; Reichelt and Lynies 1999; Karim and Marosszeky 1999; Brown and Adams 2000; DETR 2000; Lehtonen Lehtonen may refer to:
  • Antero Lehtonen (born 1954), former Finnish ice hockey player
  • Eero Lehtonen (1898-1959), Finnish pentathlete
  • Joel Lehtonen (1881-1934), Finnish author, translator, critic and journalist
 2001; Chan 2001; Samson and Lema 2002; Kuprenas 2003; Cheung et al. 2004; Iyer and Jha 2005; Navon 2005; Love et al. 2005; Ugwa and Haupt 2007). The performance factors were summarized and collected according to according to
prep.
1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.

2. In keeping with: according to instructions.

3.
 previous studies and others as recommended by local experts. The main groups considered in this paper are: time, quality, productivity, client satisfaction, regular and community satisfaction, people, health and safety, innovation and learning, and environment.

The relative importance index method (RII RII Routing Information Indicator
RII Remote Ignition Interrupter (monster truck emergency power switch)
RII Required Inspection Item (FAA)
RII Relevant Information and Intelligence
) was used herein to determine owners', consultants', and contractors' perceptions of the relative importance of the identified performance factors. The RII was computed as (Cheung et al. 2004; Iyer and Jha 2005; Ugwu and Haupt 2007):

RII = [summation summation n. the final argument of an attorney at the close of a trial in which he/she attempts to convince the judge and/or jury of the virtues of the client's case. (See: closing argument) ]W/(A x N),

where W is the weight given to each factor by the respondents and ranges from 1 to 5; A--the highest weight = 5; N--the total number of respondents.

To determine whether there is a significant degree of agreement among the 3 groups of respondents (owners, contractors and consultants), Kendall's coefficient of concordance Noun 1. coefficient of concordance - a coefficient of agreement (concordance) between different sets of rank orderings of the same set of things
statistics - a branch of applied mathematics concerned with the collection and interpretation of quantitative data and
 is used as a measure of agreement among raters. Kendall's coefficient of concordance indicates the degree of agreement on a zero to one scale, and is computed by the following equation (Moore Moore, city (1990 pop. 40,761), Cleveland co., central Okla., a suburb of Oklahoma City; inc. 1887. Its manufactures include lightning- and surge-protection equipment, packaging for foods, and auto parts.  et al. 2003; Frimpong Frimpong may refer to:
  • Joetex Asamoah Frimpong (born 1982), Ghanaian football striker
  • Tina Frimpong Ellertson (born 1982), defender on the United States women's national soccer team
'' See also
  • Frimpong-Boateng
 et al. 2003):

W = 12U - (3[m.sup.2]n[(n - 1).sup.2])/([m.sup.2]n(n - 1)),

where:

U = [n.summation over (i=1)] [([summation] R).sup.2],

n--number of factors; m--number of groups; j--the factors 1, 2, ..., N.

Null hypothesis null hypothesis,
n theoretical assumption that a given therapy will have results not statistically different from another treatment.

null hypothesis,
n
: H0: There is insignificant degree of agreement among owners, contractors and consultants.

* Alternative hypothesis alternative hypothesis Epidemiology A hypothesis to be adopted if a null hypothesis proves implausible, where exposure is linked to disease. See Hypothesis testing. Cf Null hypothesis. : H1: There is a statistically significant degree of agreement among owners, contractors and consultants.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Factors affecting the performance of construction projects

Table 1 summarizes the computed RIIs and their ranks as perceived by the 3 responding groups.

Table 2 illustrates the top significant factors affecting the performance of construction projects. It can be inferred from this table that 3 most important factors according to the perception of owner, consultant, and contractor are: average delay because of closures leading to materials shortage, unavailability of resources, and leadership skills for project manager.

According to owners, consultants, and contractors, it seems that the average delay because of closures leading to materials shortage was the most important performance factor as it has the first rank among all factors with relative index (RII) = 0.941 for owners, 0.896 for consultants, and 0.943 for contractors. This agreement between all target groups is traced to the difficult political situation from which the Gaza Strip suffers. Local construction projects suffer from a number of problems because of closures and materials shortage. These problems can be considered as an obstacle for time performance of projects.

As indicated in Table 3, the quality group has been ranked by the owners' respondents in the second position with RII equal to 0.792. It has been ranked by the consultants' respondents in the first position with RII equal to 0.787 and has been ranked by the contractors' respondents in the third position with RII equal to 0.794. This group is the most important one for consultants because consultants are interested in clients and technical factors. Consultants observed that quality of equipment and raw materials in project and availability of personnel with high qualifications strongly affect the quality performance of a project.

The people group has been ranked by the owners' respondents in the third position with RII equal to 0.759. It has been ranked by the consultants' respondents in the 7th position with RII equal to 0.712 and has been ranked by the contractors' respondents in the first position with RII equal to 0.812. It is not surprising to observe that the people group is the most important one for contractors because contractors remarked on competence development between employees and belonging to work strongly affect productivity, cost, and time performance of contractors.

The innovation and learning group has been ranked by the owners' respondents in the first position with RII equal to 0.821. It has been ranked by the consultants' respondents in the 4th position with RII equal to 0.744 and has been ranked by the contractors' respondents in the second position with RII equal to 0.804. This group is the most important one for owners because owners remarked that learning from experience and training the human resources The fancy word for "people." The human resources department within an organization, years ago known as the "personnel department," manages the administrative aspects of the employees.  with skills demanded by the project strongly affect project performance.

The following is a brief discussion of the ranking of factors in groups, as shown in Table 1.

3.1.1. Group one: cost factors

The relative importance index (RII) and rank of cost factors are summarized in Table 4. Escalation es·ca·late  
v. es·ca·lat·ed, es·ca·lat·ing, es·ca·lates

v.tr.
To increase, enlarge, or intensify: escalated the hostilities in the Persian Gulf.

v.intr.
 of material prices has been ranked by the owners' and contractors' respondents in the first position. However, this factor has been ranked by the consultants' respondents in the second position. It is observed that this factor is more important for owners and contractors because escalation of material prices affects the liquidity of owners and the profit rate of contractors. Continuous closures of roads in the Gaza Strip lead to rapid shortages of construction materials and escalation of construction material prices.

Differentiation of currency prices has been ranked by the owners' respondents in the 4th position. It has been ranked by the consultants' respondents in the 3rd position and by the contractors' respondents in the second position. It is not surprising to find out differentiation of currency prices is more important for contractors than for others because this factor affects contractors' profit rate and cost performance. The cash flow of a project has been ranked by the owners' respondents in the second position. It has been ranked by the consultants' respondents in the 4th position and by the contractors' respondents in the 3rd position. Cash flow is more important for owners and contractors than for consultants, because it can give an important evaluation for the owners' and the contractors' cost performance at any stage of project.

Material and equipment cost has been ranked by the owners' respondents in the second position, but it has been ranked by the consultants' and the contractors' respondents in the 5th position. This indicates that this factor is more important for owners than for others. Material and equipment cost is one of the project cost components that affects owners' liquidity and project budget. Our results do not align align (līn),
v to move the teeth into their proper positions to conform to the line of occlusion.
 with those of Iyer and Jha (2005) and Ugwu and Haupt (2007) as materials and equipment cost rarely affect the cost performance of Indian and South African construction projects. This can be attributed to different economic and political situations.

Liquidity of organisation has been ranked by the owners' respondents in the 6th position. It has been ranked by the consultants' respondents in the first position and by the contractors' respondents in the 4th position. Consultants considered this factor as the most important one because cost performance of any project depends mainly on the organisation liquidity. Our result is in line with those of Samson and Lema (2002), as liquidity of the organisation is very important for evaluating of project budget and cost performance. However, Ugwu and Haupt (2007) are not in agreement with our results, as this factor is not important for owners and contractors while it is moderately important for consultants. This might be owing to owing to
prep.
Because of; on account of: I couldn't attend, owing to illness.

owing to prepdebido a, por causa de 
 different economic and political situations.

3.1.2. Group two: time factors

The relative importance index and rank of time factors are summarized in Table 5. According to owners, consultants, and contractors, the average delay because of closures leading to materials shortage was the most important performance factor, as it has the first rank among all factors with RII = 0.941 for owners, 0.896 for consultants, and 0.943 for contractors. This agreement between all target groups is traced to the difficult political situation from which the Gaza Strip suffers. Local construction projects suffer from complex problems because of closures leading to materials shortage. These problems can be considered as an obstacle for time performance of projects.

Unavailability of resources as planned through project duration has been ranked by the owners' respondents in the 3rd position. It has been ranked by the consultants' respondents in the 2nd position and by the contractors' respondents in the 3rd ane. This factor can be considered as important for 3 parties and scores a similar rank from all of them. This factor directly affects the project performance such as time. If resources are not available as planned through project duration, the project will suffer from the problem of time performance. Average delay in payment from owner to contractor has been ranked by the owners', consultants', and contractors' respondents in the 3rd position. This agreement between parties is traced to disputes that will happen between project parties, when the payment from owner is delayed. This will affect project performance, especially time criteria. Karim and Marosszeky (1999) are in agreement with our result, as the average delay in payment from owner to contractor affects the time performance.

Percentage of orders delivered late has been ranked by the owners' respondents in the 6th position and by the consultants' and contractors' respondents in the 4th position. This factor has the same rank for contractors and consultants and it is more important for them because it is related to contractual relationships between them. The contractor cannot implement any stage through a project without having orders from the project consultant. Planned time for project construction has been ranked by the owners' respondents in the 4th position and by the consultants' and contractors' respondents in the 5th position. This factor is more important for owners as they usually want their projects completed as early as possible.

3.1.3. Group three: quality factors

The relative importance index and rank of quality factors are summarized in Table 6. Unavailability of personnel with high experience and qualifications has been ranked by consultants' and contractors' respondents in the first position and by owners' respondents in the second one. This factor is very important for 3 parties because availability of personnel with high experience and qualifications assist them to implement their project with a professional and successful performance.

Participation of managerial levels in decision-making has been ranked by the owners', consultants', and contractors' respondents in the 4th position. This factor scored the same rank from all parties because sharing the managerial levels with decision-making will lead to better implementation and performance of a project and will satisfy the 3 parties to a greater degree. Iyer and Jha (2005) are in agreement with our results as this factor is important to 3 parties because it will improve overall performance of a construction project.

Conformance con·for·mance  
n.
Conformity.

Noun 1. conformance - correspondence in form or appearance
conformity

agreement, correspondence - compatibility of observations; "there was no agreement between theory and
 to specification has been ranked in the first position for owners, but it has been ranked in the 3rd position for both of consultants and contractors. This factor is more important for owners, as it is significant and related to client satisfaction. The owners usually seek to implement their project according to required specifications. Our results are align with those of Iyer and Jha (2005), as this factor is significant for owners because it is strongly related to client satisfaction. Quality of equipment and raw materials in a project has been ranked by the consultants' and contractors' respondents in the 2nd position and by the owners' respondents in the 3rd one. This factor is more important for consultants and contractors than for owners, as they usually want materials applied in a project to be of good quality and according to specification.

3.1.4. Group four: productivity factors

The relative importance index and rank of productivity factors are summarized in Table 7. Sequencing of work according to schedule has been ranked by owners, consultants, and contractors in the first position. This factor is the most important one for 3 parties because sequencing the work according to schedule assists them to conduct a project according to scheduled time In rallying, the Scheduled Time of any crew is the time, calculated at the beginning of the event, that they should arrive at any given control. It is different from Due Time in that Due Time is dynamic, ie it can change throughout the event as competitors drop time; whereas  for project completion. Our results are align with those of Samson and Lema (2002), as sequencing of work affects the productivity performance of contractors.

Management-labour relationship has been ranked by owners' and contractors' respondents in the 2nd position and by consultants' respondents in the 3rd one. This factor is considered as important for 3 parties as management-labour relationship can assist them by strong coordination and motivation between labour level and managerial level. This will lead to an improvement in productivity and performance of projects.

Number of new projects per year has been ranked by owners' and contractors' respondents in the 5th position and has been ranked by consultants' respondents in the 3rd position. This factor is considered more important for consultants. Owners and contractors considered the number of new projects/year rarely affect the performance of projects. Consultants believed that number of new projects/year affect the degree of experiences and skills learned from executed projects and that will affect the degree of project performance based on previous or current experiences.

3.1.5. Group 5: client satisfaction factors

The relative importance index and rank of client satisfaction factors are summarized in Table 8. Leadership skills for project managers have been ranked by owners', consultants', and contractors' respondents in the 1st position. This factor is the most important one for 3 parties because leadership skills for project managers affect the degree of project performance and client satisfaction. Cheung et al. (2004) observed that this factor is important for effectiveness of project performance. Our results are align with those of Cheung et al. (2004), as this factor is important for 3 parties because it is significant for effectiveness of project performance.

Number of reworks has been ranked by owners', consultants', and contractors' respondents in the 5th position. This factor has the same rank for 3 parties because number of reworks affect the relationship between them. Number of disputes between owner and project parties have been ranked by owners' respondents in the 2nd position and by consultants' and contractors' respondents in the 4th position. This factor is more important for owners because disputes between owner and project parties will affect relationships between them and the degree of client satisfaction will be affected. All of that affects the performance of project. Information coordination between owner and project parties has been ranked by the owners' and contractors' respondents in the 3rd position and by the consultants' respondents in the 2nd position.

3.1.6. Group 6: regular and community satisfaction factors

The relative importance index and rank of regular and community satisfaction factors are summarized in Table 9. Neighbours This article is about an Australian soap opera. For other articles with similar names, see Neighbours (disambiguation).
Neighbours is a long-running Australian soap opera, which began its run in March 1985.
 and site condition problems have been ranked by the owners' and contractors' respondents in the 1st position and by the consultants' respondents in the second one. This factor is more important for owners and contractors because it is strongly related to client satisfaction and contractors' performance.

Quality and availability of regulator regulator,
n the mechanical part of a gas delivery system that controls gas pressure that allows a manageable flow of drug vapor to escape.


regulator

see reducing valve.
 documentation has been ranked by the consultants' respondents in the 1st position and by the owners' and contractors' respondents in the 2nd position. Quality and availability of regulator documentation is more important for consultants because it affects the performance of consultants and community satisfaction. This result is in line with Samson and Lema (2002), as this factor affects the contractors' performance because it affects regular and community satisfactions.

It can be understood, that there is a strong agreement between owners and contractors for ranking all regular and community satisfaction factors because they are more related to contractors' performance and client satisfaction. Generally, it can be said that 3 parties are in agreement for ranking these factors.

3.1.7. Group 7: people factors

The relative importance index and rank of people factors are summarized in Table 10.

Belonging to work it has been ranked by the owners, consultants, and contractors respondents in the first position. This factor is the most important one for 3 parties because belonging to work usually improves productivity and performance of project. Iyer and Jha (2005) are in agreement with our result as this factor is important for three parties because belonging to works improves productivity and performance of a project.

Employees' motivation has been ranked by the owners' respondents in the 2nd position. It has been ranked by the consultants' respondents in the 3rd position and by the contractors' respondents in the 4th position. This factor is less important for contractors because it is rarely that contractors motivate employees in the Gaza Strip. Iyer and Jha (2005) remarked that this factor is moderately important for contractors because of absence of motivation systems in construction projects. However, other factors are ranked as more important for one party than others, as shown previously.

3.1.8. Group 8: health and safety factors

The relative importance index and rank of health and safety factors are summarized in Table 11. Application of health and safety factors in organizations has been ranked by the consultants' and contractors' respondents in 1st position, but has been ranked by the owners' respondents in the 2nd one. However, this factor is very important for 3 parties because application of health and safety factors in construction projects will improve overall performance of such projects. This result is in line with Cheung et al. (2004), as this factor strongly affects the performance of projects because it affects the safety of employees.

Reportable accident rate in project has been ranked by the owners' respondents in the 1st position. It has been ranked by the consultants' respondents in the 3rd position and by the contractors' respondents in the 4th position. Owners considered this factor as the most important one, because reportable accident rate usually affects the safety performance and the client satisfaction degree in construction projects. Ease of access to the site (location of project) has been ranked by the owners' respondents in the 3rd position and by the consultants' and contractors' respondent In Equity practice, the party who answers a bill or other proceeding in equity. The party against whom an appeal or motion, an application for a court order, is instituted and who is required to answer in order to protect his or her interests.  in the 2nd position. This factor is more important for consultants and contractors because the access to the site is more relevant to them and affects the degree of safety for their employees.

3.1.9. Group 9: innovation and learning factors

The relative importance index and rank of innovation and learning factors are summarized in Table 12. Learning from own experience and past history has been ranked by the owners' respondents in the 1st position and by the consultants' and contractors' respondents in the 2nd position. This factor is more important for owners than for others. Owners can use their own experience and past history to improve and develop performance of their current and future projects. Samson and Lema (2002) remarked that learning from own experience and past history affects the performance of projects because it affects the innovation and learning required to construct projects.

Learning from best practice and experience of others has been ranked by the owners' respondents in the 3rd position and by the consultants' and contractors' respondents in the 1st position. Contractors and consultants considered this factor as a more important one than owners did. This is because learning from best practice and experience of others can improve and develop consultants' and contractors' performance.

Training the human resources in the skills demanded by the project has been ranked by the owners' respondents in the 2nd position. It has been ranked by the consultants' respondents in the 5th position and by the contractors' respondents in the 4th one. This factor is less important for contractors and consultants in the Gaza Strip, as they seldom train their employees in required and professional skills.

3.1.10. Group 10: environmental factors

The relative importance index and rank of environment factors are summarized in Table 13. Climate condition at the site has been ranked by the owners', consultants', and contractors' respondents in the 1st position. This factor is the most important one for them, because it affects the productivity and time performance of project. This result is not in agreement with Iyer and Jha (2005), as climate condition is not important for 3 parties. This might be because of different location, weather, and environment.

Noise level has been ranked by the owners', consultants', and contractors' respondents in the 4th position. However, for all parties a noise level is less important than other environmental factors because it is rarely an issue in the Gaza Strip. Ugwu and Haupt (2007) remarked that this factor is not important for owners and consultants but it is moderately important for contractors. Generally, noise level affects the productivity performance of construction projects.

3.2. Degree of agreement among responding groups

To determine whether there is a significant degree of agreement among the 3 groups (owners, contractors, and consultants) Kendall's coefficient of concordance is used as a measure of agreement among raters. For cost, time, quality, productivity, client satisfaction, people, innovation, and learning factors, and all groups together, the p-values (Sig (Special Interest Group) A group of people who meets and shares information about a particular topic of interest. It is usually a part of a larger group or association.

1. SIG - Special Interest Group
2.
.) are less than L = 0.05 (L is the level of significance), the null hypothesis, H0, is rejected and the alternative hypothesis, H1, is accepted. Therefore, it can be said that there is a significant degree of agreement among the owners, contractors and consultants regarding factors affecting the performance of construction projects in the Gaza Strip.

On the other hand, for regular and community satisfaction, health and safety, and environment factors, the p-values (Sig.) are greater than L = 0.05 (L is the level of significance), then we do not reject the null hypothesis, H0. Therefore, it can be said that there is an insufficient evidence insufficient evidence n. a finding (decision) by a trial judge or an appeals court that the prosecution in a criminal case or a plaintiff in a lawsuit has not proved the case because the attorney did not present enough convincing evidence.  to support the alternative hypothesis, H1. Hence, there is an insignificant degree of agreement among the owners, contractors, and consultants regarding factors affecting the performance of construction projects in the Gaza Strip.

4. Conclusions

A questionnaire-based survey was used to elicit the attitude of owners, consultants, and contractors towards factors affecting the performance of construction projects in the Gaza Strip. 120 questionnaires were distributed as follows: 25 to owners, 35 to consultants and 60 to contractors. 88 questionnaires (73%) were returned as follows: 17 from owners, 25 from consultants, and 46 from contractors as respondents. The respondents were asked to indicate the level of importance of each of the 63 factors of performance in the Gaza Strip as not important, slightly, moderately, very, and extremely important.

The results indicated that the average delay because of closures leading to materials shortage was the most important performance factor, as it has the first rank among all factors from the perspectives of owners, consultants, and contractors. This agreement between all target groups is traced to the difficult political situation from which the Gaza Strip suffers. The most important factors agreed by the owners, consultants, and contractors as the main factors affecting the performance of construction projects in the Gaza Strip were: escalation of material prices, availability of resources as planned through project duration, average delay because of closures leading to materials shortage, availability of personnel with a high experience and qualifications, quality of equipment and raw materials in project, and leadership skills for project managers.

Kendall's coefficient of concordance is used to determine, whether there is a degree of agreement among performance factors for owners, consultants, and contractors. For cost, time, quality, productivity, client satisfaction, people, innovation, and learning factors, and all groups together, there is a significant degree of agreement among the owners, consultants, and contractors. This is because all owners, consultants, and contractors are concerned with these groups. On the other hand, for regular and community satisfaction, health and safety, and environment factors, there is an insignificant degree of agreement among the owners, consultants, and contractors. This is because contractors are concerned with these factors more or less than owners and consultants. The owners and consultants considered the client and technical factors to be more important than the operational ones.

The authors recommended to develop human resources in the construction industry through proper and continuous training programs about construction projects performance. These programs can update participants' knowledge and can assist them to be more familiar with project management techniques and processes. Owners are encouraged to facilitate payment to contractors in order to overcome delay, disputes, and claims. All managerial levels should participate in sensitive and important decision-making. Continuous coordination and relationship between project participants are required through project life cycle for solving problems and developing project performance.

Consultants should be more interested in design cost by using multi-criteria analysis and choosing the most economical criteria in order to improve their performance and to increase owners' satisfaction. In addition, consultants are urged to facilitate and expedite ex·pe·dite  
tr.v. ex·pe·dit·ed, ex·pe·dit·ing, ex·pe·dites
1. To speed up the progress of; accelerate.

2.
 orders delivered to contractors to obtain better time performance and to minimize disputes and claims. Contractors should not increase the number of projects that cannot be performed successfully. In addition, contractors should consider political and business environment risks in their cost estimation estimation

In mathematics, use of a function or formula to derive a solution or make a prediction. Unlike approximation, it has precise connotations. In statistics, for example, it connotes the careful selection and testing of a function called an estimator.
 for overcoming delay because of closures leading to materials shortages. There should be adequate contingency contingency n. an event that might not occur.  allowances in order to cover increases in material cost. Proper motivation and safety systems should be established for improving the productivity performance of construction projects in the Gaza Strip. Greater application of health and safety factors are necessary to overcome problems of safety performance.

Contractors are counseled to minimize waste rates through project implementation for improving cost. They should be more interested in conformance to project specification to overcome disputes, time, and cost performance problems. Quality materials should be of a greater interest for contractors in order to improve cost, time, and quality performance. This can be done by applying quality training and meetings that are necessary for performing an improvement. Contractors are urged to be more interested in sequencing of work according to schedule. In addition, contractors should have a cost engineer in their projects to successfully control costs.

Received 6 Nov 2008; accepted 3 Apr 2009

References

Alinaitwe, H. M.; Mwakali, J. A.; Hansson, B. 2007. Factors affecting the productivity of building craftsmen studies of Uganda Uganda (ygän`də, gän`dä), officially Republic of Uganda, republic (2005 est. pop. , Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 13(3): 169-176.

Brown, A.; Adams, J. 2000. Measuring the effect of project management on construction outputs: a new approach, International Journal of Project Management 18: 327-335.

Cavalieri Cavalieri is an Italian Surname
  • Bonaventura Cavalieri (1598–1647), Italian mathematician
  • Diego Cavalieri (born 1982), Brazilian Goalkeeper (football), currently playing for SE Palmeiras
, S.; Terzi, S.; Macchi, M. 2007. A benchmarking service for the evaluation and comparison of scheduling techniques, Computers in Industry 58: 656-666. doi:10.1016/j.compind.2007.05.004

Chan, A. P. C. 2001. Time-cost relationship of public sector projects in Malaysia Malaysia (məlā`zhə), independent federation (2005 est. pop. 23,953,000), 128,430 sq mi (332,633 sq km), Southeast Asia. The official capital and by far the largest city is Kuala Lumpur; Putrajaya is the adminstrative capital. , International Journal of Project Management 19: 223-229. doi :10.1016/50263-7863 (99)00072-1

Chan, A. P. C.; Chan, D. W. M. 2004. Developing a benchmark A performance test of hardware and/or software. There are various programs that very accurately test the raw power of a single machine, the interaction in a single client/server system (one server/multiple clients) and the transactions per second in a transaction processing system.  model for project construction time performance in Hong Kong Hong Kong (hŏng kŏng), Mandarin Xianggang, special administrative region of China, formerly a British crown colony (2005 est. pop. 6,899,000), land area 422 sq mi (1,092 sq km), adjacent to Guangdong prov. , Building and Environment 39: 339-349. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2003.08.012

Chan, D. W. M.; Kumaraswamy, M. M. 2002. Compressing com·press  
tr.v. com·pressed, com·press·ing, com·press·es
1. To press together: compressed her lips.

2. To make more compact by or as if by pressing.

3.
 construction durations: lessons learned from Hong Kong building projects, International Journal of Project Management 20: 23-35. doi:10.1016/50263-7863(00)00032-6

Cheung, S.-O.; Suen, H. C. H.; Cheung, K. K. W. 2004. PPMS PPMS Physical Properties Measurement System
PPMS Professional Practices Management System
PPMS Pittsburgh Pennsylvania Motor Speedway
PPMS Prepaid/Postpaid Management System (iSoftel)
PPMS Permanent PMS
: a Web-based construction project performance monitoring system, Automation in Construction 13: 361-376. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2003.12.001

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), (2000), KPI KPI Key Performance Indicator
KPI Kuwait Petroleum International
KPI Kiev Polytechnic Institute (Ukraine)
KPI Kernel Programming Interface
KPI King Pin Inclination (vehicle steering geometry angle) 
 Report for the Minister for Construction by the KPI Working Group, January January: see month.  2000.

Dissanayaka, S. M.; Kumaraswamy, M. M. 1999. Comparing contributors to time and cost performance in building projects, Building and Environment 34: 31-42. doi:10.1016/50360-1323(97)00068-1

Elyamany, A.; Ismail Ismail, sultan of Morocco
Ismail, 1646?–1727, sultan of Morocco (1672–1727). He organized corps of Sudanese to subdue the revolts that followed his accession. He attacked Christian strongholds in Morocco, regaining Larache and Arzila.
, B.; Zayed, T. 2007. Performance evaluating model for construction companies: Egyptian case study, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 133(8): 574-581. doi:10.1061 /(ASCE ASCE
abbr.
American Society of Civil Engineers
)073 3-9364(2007)133:8(574)

Enshassi, A.; Mohamed, S.; Abu ABU Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union
ABU Association des Bibliophiles Universels
ABU Ahmadu Bello University (Zaria, Nigeria)
ABU Atlantic Baptist University (Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada) 
 Mustafa Mustafa or Kara Mustafa (kärä` mstäfä`) [Turk. kara=black], d. , Z.; Mayer, P. E. 2007. Factors affecting labor productivity in building projects in the Gaza Strip, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management 13(4): 245-254.

Faridi, A.; El-Sayegh, S. 2006. Significant factors causing delay in the UAE construction industry, Construction Management and Economics 24(11): 1167-1176. doi:10.1080/01446190600827033

Frimpong Yaw; Oluwoye, J.; Crawford, L. 2003. Causes of delay and cost overruns in construction of groundwater groundwater
 or subsurface water

Water that occurs below the surface of the Earth, where it occupies spaces in soils or geologic strata. Most groundwater comes from precipitation, which gradually percolates into the Earth.
 projects in a developing countries; Ghana as a case study, International Journal of Project Management 21: 321326. doi:10.1016/50263-7863(02)00055-8

Hanson, D.; Mbachu, J.; Nkando, R. 2003. Causes of client dissatisfaction in the South African building industry and ways of improvement: the contractors' perspectives, in CIDB CIDB Construction Industry Development Board
CIDB common intelligence database (US DoD)
CIDB Configuration Item Database
CIDB Control Inspection Database
, South Africa.

Iyer, K. C.; Jha, K. N. 2005. Factors affecting cost performance: evidence from Indian construction projects, International Journal of Project Management 23: 283-295. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.10.003

Karim, K.; Marosszeky, M. 1999. Process monitoring for process re-engineering--using key performance indicators Key Performance Indicators (KPI) are financial and non-financial metrics used to quantify objectives to reflect strategic performance of an organization. KPIs are used in Business Intelligence to assess the present state of the business and to prescribe a course of action. , International Conference on Construction Process Reengineering Using information technology to improve performance and cut costs. Its main premise, as popularized by the book "Reengineering the Corporation" by Michael Hammer and James Champy, is to examine the goals of an organization and to redesign work and business processes from the ground up , CPR Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Definition

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a procedure to support and maintain breathing and circulation for a person who has stopped breathing (respiratory arrest) and/or whose heart has stopped (cardiac
 99, Sydney Sydney, city, Australia
Sydney, city (1991 pop. 3,097,956), capital of New South Wales, SE Australia, surrounding Port Jackson inlet on the Pacific Ocean. Sydney is Australia's largest city, chief port, and main cultural and industrial center.
, 12-13 July July: see month. .

Kuprenas, J. A. 2003. Project management actions to improve design phase cost performance, Journal of Management in Engineering 19(1): 25-32. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2003)19:1(25)

Lee, A.; Cooper, R.; Aouad, G. 2001. A methodology for designing performance measures for the UK construction industry. Salford Salford (sŏl`fərd, sôl`–), city (1991 pop. 96,525), NW England, located in the Manchester metropolitan area on the Irwell River.  University.

Lehtonen Tutu Wegelius. 2001. Performance measurement in construction logistics, International Journal of Production Economics 69: 107-116. doi:10.1016/50925-5273(00)00034-7

Love, P. E. D.; Tse, R. Y. C.; Edwards, D. J. 2005. Time-cost relationships in australian building construction projects, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 131(2): 187-194. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:2(187)

Mbachu, J.; Nkando, R. 2007. Factors constraining successful building project implementation in South Africa, Construction Management and Economics 25(1): 39-54. doi:10.1080/01446190600601297

Moore, D.; McCabe, G.; Duckworth Duckworth may be a surname or a company name. Surnames
As a surname, Duckworth may refer to:
  • Anthony Duckworth-Chad
  • Bob Duckworth
  • Brandon Duckworth
  • Christopher Duckworth
  • Dick Duckworth
, W.; Sclove, S. 2003. The Practice of business statistics. Freeman Freeman can mean:
  • An individual not tied to land under the Medieval feudal system, unlike a villein or serf
  • A person who has been awarded Freedom of the City or "Freedom of the Company" in a Livery Company
  • The Freeman
, New York New York, state, United States
New York, Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of
. Navon, R. 2005. Automated au·to·mate  
v. au·to·mat·ed, au·to·mat·ing, au·to·mates

v.tr.
1. To convert to automatic operation: automate a factory.

2.
 project performance control of construction projects, Automation in Construction 14: 467-476. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2004.09.006

Ofori, G.; Dulaimi, M. F.; Ling ling: see cod. , F. Y. 2004. improving performance of construction industry in Singapore Singapore (sĭng`gəpôr, sĭng`ə–, sĭng'gəpôr`), officially Republic of Singapore, republic (2005 est. pop. 4,426,000), 240 sq mi (625 sq km). : motivators, enablers and lessons for developing countries, Journal of Construction Research 5(2): 267-289. doi:10.1142/S1609945104000188

Okuwoga, A. A. 1998. Cost-time performance of public sector housing projects in Nigeria Nigeria (nījĭr`ēə), officially Federal Republic of Nigeria, republic (2006 provisional pop. 140,003,542), 356,667 sq mi (923,768 sq km), W Africa. , Habitat Intl. 22(4): 389-395. doi:10.1016/50197-3975(98)00014-9

Pheng, L. S.; Chuan, Q. T. 2006. Environmental factors and work performance of project managers in the construction industry, International Journal of Project Management 24: 24-37. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.06.001

Reichelt, K.; Lyneis, J. 1999. The dynamic of project performance: Benchmarking the drivers of cost and schedule overrun 1. overrun - A frequent consequence of data arriving faster than it can be consumed, especially in serial line communications. For example, at 9600 baud there is almost exactly one character per millisecond, so if a silo can hold only two characters and the machine takes , European Management Journal 17(2): 135-150. doi:10.1016/50263-2373(98)00073-5

Samson, M.; Lema, N. M. 2005. Development of construction contractors performance measurement framework. Department of Construction Technology and Management, University of Dar es Salaam The University of Dar es Salaam is a university in the Tanzanian city of Dar es Salaam. The university was born out of a decision taken in 1970 to split the then University of East Africa into three independent universities; Makerere University (Uganda), University of Nairobi , Tanzania Tanzania (tăn'zənē`ə, –zăn`ēə, Swahili tänzänē`ä), officially United Republic of Tanzania, republic (2005 est. pop. .

Ugwu, O. O.; Haupt, T. C. 2007. Key performance indicators and assessment methods for infrastructure sustainability a South African construction industry perspective, Building and Environment 42: 665-680. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.10.018

UNRWA. 2006. Projects completion reports, UNRWA, Gaza Gaza, Ghazzah (both: gäz`ə), or Ghuzzeh (gŭz`ə), town (2003 est. pop. .

UNRWA. 2007. Projects completion reports, UNRWA, Gaza.

World Bank. 2004. Infrastructure Assessment, Finance, Private Sector and Infrastructure Group, Middle East & North Africa, December December: see month.  2004.

Zulu, S.; Chileshe, N. 2008. The impact of service quality on project performance: a case study of building maintenance services in Zambia, in Proc. of the 3rd Built Environment Conference, Association of Schools of Construction of Southern Africa, Cape Town Cape Town or Capetown, city (1991 pop. 854,616), legislative capital of South Africa and capital of Western Cape, a port on the Atlantic Ocean. It was the capital of Cape Province before that province's subdivision in 1994. , South Africa.

Adnan Adnani Arabs trace their lineage to Adnan bin Ma'ad bin Nizar who descends from Ismail bin Abraham in 40 generations through his Ismail's son Qidar. Adnan replacing Qidar, Nizar and Ma'ad lineage  Enshassi (1), Sherif she·rif also sha·rif  
n.
1. A descendant of the prophet Muhammad through his daughter Fatima.

2. The chief magistrate of Mecca in Ottoman times.

3. A Moroccan prince or ruler.
 Mohamed (2), Saleh
Not to be confused with the city of Salè, Morocco.

For the current President of Yemen, see .

Saleh (Arabic: صالح) in Arabic means a Righteous person.
 Abushaban (3)

(1) School of Civil Engineering, Islamic University of Gaza The university, according to its website, has 10 faculties capable of awarding either B.A., B.Sc., M.A., M.Sc., Diploma and higher diploma in their respective disciplines[2]. , P.O. Box 108, Gaza, Palestine

(2) School of Engineering, Griffith University Griffith University is an Australian public university with five campuses in Queensland between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. In 2007 there were more than 33,000 enrolled students and 3,000 staff. , Gold Coast Campus, QLD QLD or Qld Queensland  4222, Australia Australia (ôstrāl`yə), smallest continent, between the Indian and Pacific oceans. With the island state of Tasmania to the south, the continent makes up the Commonwealth of Australia, a federal parliamentary state (2005 est. pop.  

(3) Continuing Education continuing education: see adult education.
continuing education
 or adult education

Any form of learning provided for adults. In the U.S. the University of Wisconsin was the first academic institution to offer such programs (1904).
 Center, Community College of Applied Science and Technology The College of Applied Science and Technology (CAST) is one of the original colleges of the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT). CAST encompasses 20% of RIT's enrollment. The college was the first New York technical school to offer an associate's degree in Applied Science. , P.O. Box 1415, Gaza, Palestine

E-mail: (1) enshassi@iugaza.edu See .edu.

(networking) edu - ("education") The top-level domain for educational establishments in the USA (and some other countries). E.g. "mit.edu". The UK equivalent is "ac.uk".
.ps; (2) s.mohamed@griffith Griffith, town (1990 pop. 17,916), Lake co., extreme NW Ind.; inc. 1904. It is primarily a residential town in the Chicago metropolitan area. Manufactures include metal products, chemicals, and electronic equipment. .edu.au

Adnan ENSHASSI is a Professor and Dean of the Faculty of Engineering at the Islamic University of Gaza (Palestine). Member in the international editorial board of the International Journal of Construction Management (HONGKONG); and the International Journal of Construction Project Management (CANADA Canada (kăn`ədə), independent nation (2001 pop. 30,007,094), 3,851,787 sq mi (9,976,128 sq km), N North America. Canada occupies all of North America N of the United States (and E of Alaska) except for Greenland and the French islands of ). His research interest include safety in construction, productivity improvement, contract management, and risk analysis and management. Author and co-author of over 100 refereed journal refereed journal,
n a professional or literary journal or publication in which articles or papers are selected for publication by a panel of readers or referees who are experts in the field.
 and conference publications.

Sherif MOHAMED. Professor and Director of the Centre for Infrastructure Engineering and Management at Griffith University, Queensland Queensland, state (1991 pop. 2,477,152), 667,000 sq mi (1,727,200 sq km), NE Australia. Brisbane is the capital; other important cities are Gold Coast, Toowoomba, Townsville, Rockhampton, Cairns, and Ipswich.  (Australia). His research interest lies in the field of project and construction management, focusing mainly on the development of theoretical knowledge and operational tools needed for effective process management. Author and co-author of over 100 refereed journal and conference publications in the last 10 years.

Saleh ABUSHABAN is a research assistant at the Continuing Education Centre, CCAST CCAST Community College of Applied Science and Technology , Palestine. His research interests include construction productivity and safety in construction.
Table 1. Summary of relative importance index and rank for factors
affecting the performance of construction projects

                                                           Owner

Performance factors                                      RII   Rank

(1) Cost factors

Market share of organization                           0.600     54
Liquidity of organization                              0.729     31
Cash flow of project                                   0.812     14
Profit rate of project                                 0.694     38
Overhead percentage of project                         0.647     48
Project design cost                                    0.500     63
Material and equipment cost                            0.812     14
Project labour cost                                    0.741     27
Project overtime cost                                  0.588     58
Motivation cost                                        0.600     54
Cost of rework                                         0.588     58
Cost of variation orders                               0.565     62
Waste rate of materials                                0.650     46
Regular project budget update                          0.638     50
Cost control system                                    0.725     33
Escalation of material prices                          0.847      5
Differentiation of currency prices                     0.788     18

(2) Time factors

Site preparation time                                  0.682     42
Planned time for construction                          0.753     26
Percentage of orders delivered late                    0.694     40
Time needed to implement variation orders              0.706     35
Time needed to rectify defects                         0.659     44
Average delay in claim approval                        0.650     46
Average delay in regular payments                      0.824     11
Unavailability of resources                            0.871      3
Average delay because of closures                      0.941      1
leading to materials shortage

(3) Quality factors

Conformance to specification                           0.882      2
Unavailability of competent staff                      0.859      4
Quality of equipment and raw materials                 0.835      9
Quality assessment system in organization              0.706     35
Quality training/meeting                               0.659     45

(4) Productivity factors

Project complexity                                     0.729     31
Number of new projects / year                          0.600     54
Management-labour relationship                         0.776     22
Absenteeism rate through project                       0.776     20
Sequencing of work according to schedule                 0.8     17

(5) Client satisfaction factors

Information coordination between owner                 0.729     29
  and project parties
Leadership skills for project manager                  0.835      7
S geed and reliability of service to owner             0.718     34
Number of disputes between owner                       0.753     24
  and project parties
Number of rework incidents                             0.635     51

(6) Regular and community satisfaction factors

Cost of compliance to regulators requirements          0.600     54
Number of non-compliance events                        0.635     51
Quality and availability of                            0.647     49
  regulator documentation
Site condition problems                                0.788     18

(7) People factors

Employee attitudes                                     0.682     41
Recruitment and competence development                 0.753     24
Employees motivation                                   0.765     23
Belonging to work                                      0.835      9

(8) Health and safety factors

Application of health and safety factors               0.700     37
in organization
Project location is safe to reach                      0.694     38
Reportable accidents rate in project                   0.729     29
Assurance rate of project                              0.671     43

(9) Innovation and learning factors

Learning from own experience and past history          0.847      5
Learning from best practice and                        0.824     12
  experience of others
Work group                                             0.776     20
Review of failures and solving them                    0.824     12

(10) Environmental factors

Air quality                                            0.588     58
Noise level                                            0.565     61
Wastes around the site                                 0.635     51
Climate condition                                      0.729     28

                                                        Consultant

Performance factors                                      RII   Rank

(1) Cost factors

Market share of organization                           0.709     39
Liquidity of organization                              0.842      5
Cash flow of project                                   0.800     11
Profit rate of project                                 0.776     14
Overhead percentage of project                         0.687     49
Project design cost                                    0.688     43
Material and equipment cost                            0.776     14
Project labour cost                                    0.744     22
Project overtime cost                                  0.600     59
Motivation cost                                        0.584     61
Cost of rework                                         0.672     51
Cost of variation orders                               0.688     43
Waste rate of materials                                0.624     57
Regular project budget update                          0.742     24
Cost control system                                    0.728     28
Escalation of material prices                          0.832      7
Differentiation of currency prices                     0.808      9

(2) Time factors

Site preparation time                                  0.664     53
Planned time for construction                          0.760     18
Percentage of orders delivered late                    0.768     17
Time needed to implement variation orders              0.704     40
Time needed to rectify defects                         0.672     51
Average delay in claim approval                        0.728     28
Average delay in regular payments                      0.776     14
Unavailability of resources                            0.858      2
Average delay because of closures                      0.896      1
leading to materials shortage

(3) Quality factors

Conformance to specification                           0.808      9
Unavailability of competent staff                      0.848      3
Quality of equipment and raw materials                 0.840      6
Quality assessment system in organization              0.712     35
Quality training/meeting                               0.728     28

(4) Productivity factors

Project complexity                                     0.712     35
Number of new projects / year                          0.688     43
Management-labour relationship                         0.688     43
Absenteeism rate through project                       0.688     43
Sequencing of work according to schedule               0.816      8

(5) Client satisfaction factors

Information coordination between owner                 0.792     12
  and project parties
Leadership skills for project manager                  0.848      3
S geed and reliability of service to owner             0.744     22
Number of disputes between owner                       0.728     28
  and project parties
Number of rework incidents                             0.712     35

(6) Regular and community satisfaction factors

Cost of compliance to regulators requirements          0.648     55
Number of non-compliance events                        0.624     57
Quality and availability of                            0.736     25
  regulator documentation
Site condition problems                                0.712     35

(7) People factors

Employee attitudes                                     0.728     28
Recruitment and competence development                 0.688     43
Employees motivation                                   0.696     42
Belonging to work                                      0.736     25

(8) Health and safety factors

Application of health and safety factors               0.728     28
in organization
Project location is safe to reach                      0.704     40
Reportable accidents rate in project                   0.680     50
Assurance rate of project                              0.632     56

(9) Innovation and learning factors

Learning from own experience and past history          0.752     20
Learning from best practice and                        0.760     18
  experience of others
Work group                                             0.736     25
Review of failures and solving them                    0.752     20

(10) Environmental factors

Air quality                                            0.592     60
Noise level                                            0.512     63
Wastes around the site                                 0.584     61
Climate condition                                      0.656     54

                                                        Contractor

Performance factors                                      RII   Rank

(1) Cost factors

Market share of organization                           0.726     39
Liquidity of organization                              0.839     10
Cash flow of project                                   0.848      9
Profit rate of project                                 0.739     38
Overhead percentage of project                         0.662     47
Project design cost                                    0.582     63
Material and equipment cost                            0.813     16
Project labour cost                                    0.739     37
Project overtime cost                                  0.617     55
Motivation cost                                        0.609     58
Cost of rework                                         0.587     62
Cost of variation orders                               0.662     46
Waste rate of materials                                0.639     51
Regular project budget update                          0.743     35
Cost control system                                    0.765     32
Escalation of material prices                          0.889      4
Differentiation of currency prices                     0.874      5

(2) Time factors

Site preparation time                                  0.596     61
Planned time for construction                          0.765     30
Percentage of orders delivered late                    0.774     29
Time needed to implement variation orders              0.693     43
Time needed to rectify defects                         0.639     50
Average delay in claim approval                        0.765     30
Average delay in regular payments                      0.839     11
Unavailability of resources                            0.904      3
Average delay because of closures                      0.943      1
leading to materials shortage

(3) Quality factors

Conformance to specification                           0.822     13
Unavailability of competent staff                      0.865      6
Quality of equipment and raw materials                 0.861      7
Quality assessment system in organization              0.743     34
Quality training/meeting                               0.674     44

(4) Productivity factors

Project complexity                                     0.761     33
Number of new projects / year                          0.630     53
Management-labour relationship                         0.796     22
Absenteeism rate through project                       0.743     36
Sequencing of work according to schedule              10.804     20

(5) Client satisfaction factors

Information coordination between owner                 0.809     19
  and project parties
Leadership skills for project manager                  0.904      2
S geed and reliability of service to owner             0.822     13
Number of disputes between owner                       0.720     40
  and project parties
Number of rework incidents                             0.627     54

(6) Regular and community satisfaction factors

Cost of compliance to regulators requirements          0.604     59
Number of non-compliance events                        0.614     56
Quality and availability of                            0.653     48
  regulator documentation
Site condition problems                                0.707     41

(7) People factors

Employee attitudes                                     0.795     23
Recruitment and competence development                 0.809     17
Employees motivation                                   0.791     24
Belonging to work                                      0.849      8

(8) Health and safety factors

Application of health and safety factors               0.787     25
in organization
Project location is safe to reach                      0.774     28
Reportable accidents rate in project                   0.600     60
Assurance rate of project                              0.635     52

(9) Innovation and learning factors

Learning from own experience and past history          0.818     15
Learning from best practice and                        0.822     12
  experience of others
Work group                                             0.787     27
Review of failures and solving them                    0.809     17

(10) Environmental factors

Air quality                                            0.671     45
Noise level                                            0.613     57
Wastes around the site                                 0.649     49
Climate condition                                      0.707     41

Table 2. The top significant factors affecting the performance
of construction projects

                                                         Owner

Factors                                                 RII    Rank

Escalation of material prices                         0.847      5
Unavailability of resources as planned through        0.871      3
  the project duration
Average delay because of closures leading to          0.941      1
  materials shortage
Unavailability of personals with high experience      0.859      4
  and qualincation
Quality of equipments and raw materials in project    0.835      9
Leadership skills for project manager                 0.835      7

                                                      Consultant

Factors                                                 RII   Rank

Escalation of material prices                         0.832      7
Unavailability of resources as planned through        0.858      2
  the project duration
Average delay because of closures leading to          0.896      1
  materials shortage
Unavailability of personals with high experience      0.848      3
  and qualincation
Quality of equipments and raw materials in project    0.840      6
Leadership skills for project manager                 0.848      3

                                                      Contractor

Factors                                                 RII   Rank

Escalation of material prices                         0.889      4
Unavailability of resources as planned through        0.904      3
  the project duration
Average delay because of closures leading to          0.943      1
  materials shortage
Unavailability of personals with high experience      0.865      6
  and qualincation
Quality of equipments and raw materials in project    0.861      7
Leadership skills for project manager                 0.904      2

Table 3. Summary of relative importance index and rank of major
groups affecting the performance of construction projects

                                          Owner

Performance groups                      RII   Rank

Cost                                  0.679      8
Time                                  0.753      4
Quality                               0.792      2
Productivity                          0.736      5
Client satisfaction                   0.734      6
Regular and community satisfaction    0.668      9
People                                0.759      3
Health and safety                     0.698      7
Innovation and learning               0.821      1
Environment                           0.629     10

                                        Consultant

Performance groups                      RII   Rank

Cost                                  0.724      5
Time                                  0.757      3
Quality                               0.787      1
Productivity                          0.718      6
Client satisfaction                   0.765      2
Regular and community satisfaction    0.680      9
People                                0.712      7
Health and safety                     0.686      8
Innovation and learning               0.744      4
Environment                           0.586     10

                                       Contractor

Performance groups                      RII   Rank

Cost                                  0.726      7
Time                                  0.769      5
Quality                               0.794      3
Productivity                          0.747      6
Client satisfaction                   0.779      4
Regular and community satisfaction    0.646     10
People                                0.812      1
Health and safety                     0.699      8
Innovation and learning               0.804      2
Environment                           0.660      9

Table 4. Summary of relative importance index and
rank of cost factors

                                               Owner

Cost factors group                           RII   Rank

Market share of organization               0.600     12
Liquidity of organization                  0.729      6
Cash filow of project                      0.812      2
Pront rate of project                      0.694      8
Overhead percentage of project             0.647     10
Project design cost                        0.500     17
Material and equipment cost                0.812      2
Project labour cost                        0.741      5
Project overtime cost                      0.588     14
Motivation cost                            0.600     12
Cost of rework                             0.588     14
Cost of variation orders                   0.565     16
Waste rate of materials                    0.650      9
Regular project budget update              0.638     11
Cost control system                        0.725      7
Escalation of material prices              0.847      1
Differentiation of currency prices         0.788      4

                                            Consultant

Cost factors group                           RII   Rank

Market share of organization               0.709     10
Liquidity of organization                  0.842      1
Cash filow of project                      0.800      4
Pront rate of project                      0.776      5
Overhead percentage of project             0.687     13
Project design cost                        0.688     11
Material and equipment cost                0.776      5
Project labour cost                        0.744      7
Project overtime cost                      0.600     16
Motivation cost                            0.584     17
Cost of rework                             0.672     14
Cost of variation orders                   0.688     11
Waste rate of materials                    0.624     15
Regular project budget update              0.742      8
Cost control system                        0.728      9
Escalation of material prices              0.832      2
Differentiation of currency prices         0.808      3

                                             Contractor

Cost factors group                          RII    Rank

Market share of organization               0.726     10
Liquidity of organization                  0.839      4
Cash filow of project                      0.848      3
Pront rate of project                      0.739      9
Overhead percentage of project             0.662     12
Project design cost                        0.582     17
Material and equipment cost                0.813      5
Project labour cost                        0.739      8
Project overtime cost                      0.617     14
Motivation cost                            0.609     15
Cost of rework                             0.587     16
Cost of variation orders                   0.662     11
Waste rate of materials                    0.639     13
Regular project budget update              0.743      7
Cost control system                        0.765      6
Escalation of material prices              0.889      1
Differentiation of currency prices         0.874      2

Table 5. Summary of relative importance index
and rank of time factors

                                                  Owner

Time factors group                               RII   Rank

Site preparation time                          0.682      7
Planned time for project construction          0.753      4
Percentage of orders delivered late            0.694      6
Time needed to implement variation orders      0.706      5
Time needed to rectify defects                 0.659      8
Average delay in claim approval                0.650      9
Average delay in payment from                  0.824      3
  owner to contractor
Unavailability of resources as                 0.871      2
  planned through project duration
Average delay because of closures              0.941      1
  leading to materials shortage

                                                Consultant

Time factors group                               RII   Rank

Site preparation time                          0.664      9
Planned time for project construction          0.760      5
Percentage of orders delivered late            0.768      4
Time needed to implement variation orders      0.704      7
Time needed to rectify defects                 0.672      8
Average delay in claim approval                0.728      6
Average delay in payment from                  0.776      3
  owner to contractor
Unavailability of resources as                 0.858      2
  planned through project duration
Average delay because of closures              0.896      1
  leading to materials shortage

                                                Contractor

Time factors group                               RII   Rank

Site preparation time                          0.596      9
Planned time for project construction          0.765      5
Percentage of orders delivered late            0.774      4
Time needed to implement variation orders      0.693      7
Time needed to rectify defects                 0.639      8
Average delay in claim approval                0.765      5
Average delay in payment from                  0.839      3
  owner to contractor
Unavailability of resources as                 0.904      2
  planned through project duration
Average delay because of closures              0.943      1
  leading to materials shortage

Table 6. Summary of relative importance index and rank of quality
factors

                              Owner        Consultant     Contractor

Quality factors group      RII     Rank   RII     Rank   RII     Rank

Conformance to             0.882   1      0.808   3      0.822   3
   specification
Unavailabilit of           0.859   2      0.848   1      0.865   1
  personals with high
  experience and
  qualification
Quality of equipments      0.835   3      0.840   2      0.861   2
  and raw materials in
  project
Participation of           0.812   4      0.784   4      0.800   4
  managerial levels
  with decision-making
Quality assessment         0.706   5      0.712   6      0.743   5
  system in organization
Quality training/meeting   0.659   6      0.728   5      0.674   6

Table 7. Summary of relative importance index and rank of
productivity factors

                              Owner        Consultant     Contractor

Productivity factors       RII     Rank   RII     Rank   RII     Rank

Project complexity         0.729   4      0.712   2      0.761   3
Number of new              0.600   5      0.688   3      0.630   5
  projects/year
Management-labour          0.776   2      0.688   3      0.796   2
  relationship
Absenteeism rate           0.776   2      0.688   3      0.743   4
  through project
Sequencing of work         0.800   1      0.816   1      0.804   1
  according to schedule

Table 8. Summary of relative importance index and rank of
client satisfaction factors

                              Owner        Consultant     Contractor
Client satisfaction
group                      RII     Rank   RII     Rank   RII     Rank

Information coordination   0.729   3      0.792   2      0.809   3
  between owner and
  project parties
Leadership skills for      0.835   1      0.848   1      0.904   1
  project manager
Speed and reliability      0.718   4      0.744   3      0.822   2
  of service to owner
Number of disputes         0.753   2      0.728   4      0.720   4
  between owner and
  project artier
Number of reworks          0.635   5      0.712   5      0.627   5

Table 9. Summary of relative importance index and rank of
regular and community satisfaction factors

                              Owner        Consultant     Contractor
Regular and community
and satisfaction group     RII     Rank   RII     Rank   RII     Rank

Cost of compliance to      0.600   4      0.648   3      0.604   4
  regulators
  requirements
Number of non-compliance   0.635   3      0.624   4      0.614   3
  to regulation
Quality and availability   0.647   2      0.736   1      0.653   2
  of regulator
  documentation
Neighbours and site        0.788   1      0.712   2      0.707   1
  conditions problems

Table 10. Summary of relative importance index and rank of
people factors

                              Owner        Consultant     Contractor

People factors group       RII     Rank   RII     Rank   RII     Rank

Employee attitudes in      0.682   4      0.728   2      0.795   3
  project
Recruitment and            0.753   3      0.688   4      0.809   2
  competence development
  between employees
Employees motivation       0.765   2      0.696   3      0.791   4
Belonging to work          0.835   1      0.736   1      0.849   1

Table 11. Summary of relative importance index and rank of
health and safety factors

                              Owner        Consultant     Contractor
Health and factors
safety group               RII     Rank   RII     Rank   RII     Rank

Application of health      0.700   2      0.728   1      0.787   1
  and safety factors in
  organisation
Easiness to reach the      0.694   3      0.704   2      0.774   2
  site (location of
  project)
Reportable accidents       0.729   1      0.680   3      0.600   4
  rate in project
Assurance rate of          0.671   4      0.632   4      0.635   3
  project

Table 12. Summary of relative importance index and rank of
innovation factors

                              Owner        Consultant     Contractor
Innovation and factors
learning                   RII     Rank   RII     Rank   RII     Rank

Learning from own          0.847   1      0.752   2      0.818   2
  experience and past
  history
Learning from best         0.824   3      0.760   1      0.822   1
  practice and
  experience of others
Training the human         0.835   2      0.720   5      0.787   4
  resources in the
  skills demanded by the
  project
Work group                 0.776   5      0.736   4      0.787   4
Review of failures and     0.824   3      0.752   2      0.809   3
  solving them

Table 13. Summary of relative importance index and rank of
environmental factors

                              Owner        Consultant     Contractor
Environmental factors
group                      RII     Rank   RII     Rank   RII     Rank

Air quality                0.588   3      0.592   2      0.671   2
Noise level                0.565   4      0.512   4      0.613   4
Wastes around the site     0.635   2      0.584   3      0.649   3
Climate conditions         0.729   1      0.656   1      0.707   1
COPYRIGHT 2009 Vilnius Gediminas Technical University
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2009 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Enshassi, Adnan; Mohamed, Sherif; Abushaban, Saleh
Publication:Journal of Civil Engineering and Management
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:7PALE
Date:Sep 1, 2009
Words:9718
Previous Article:The construction common product coding system/Bendrojo statybos produkto kodavimo sistema.
Next Article:Organizational effectiveness of Ugandan building firms as viewed by craftsmen/Ugandos statybos imoniu organizacinis efektyvumas pagal meistru poziuri.
Topics:


Related Articles
Factors affecting labour productivity in building projects in the Gaza Strip/Veiksniai, lemiantys darbo jegos produktyvuma statybos projektuose Gazos...

Terms of use | Copyright © 2014 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters