Factors affecting the performance of construction projects in the Gaza Strip/Veiksniai, lemiantys statybos projektu igyvendinima Gazos Ruoze.
Enshassi, Adnan ; Mohamed, Sherif ; Abushaban, Saleh 等
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 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. Hanson et al. (2003) examined causes
of client dissatisfaction in the South African building industry and
found that conflict, poor workmanship and incompetence 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 successful
project delivery in South Africa. The performance of contractors in
Zambia 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, 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) in
industrialized countries (Navon 2005). Palestine 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 project-specific causes such as: unavailability of materials; excessive
amendments of design and drawings; poor coordination among participants,
ineffective monitoring and feedback, and lack of project leadership
skills (UNRWA 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 2000). Time, cost and quality are, however, the 3 predominant performance evaluation 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 (1999) found that project time and cost
performances get influenced by project characteristics, procurement 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.
The above examples demonstrate that there is a plethora 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 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 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.
2. Methodology
A questionnaire survey was used to elicit 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. 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 as: not important, slightly, moderately, very, and extremely important.
The questionnaire has been validated by the criterion-related
reliability test which measures the correlation coefficient between the
factors affecting the performance of construction projects in one field
and the whole field, and structure validity test (Spearman 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 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 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) 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]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 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 et al. 2003; Frimpong 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: H0: There is insignificant degree of agreement
among owners, contractors and consultants.
* Alternative 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.) 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 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 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 for overcoming delay because
of closures leading to materials shortages. There should be adequate
contingency 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,
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, 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, 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 model
for project construction time performance in Hong Kong, Building and
Environment 39: 339-349. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2003.08.012
Chan, D. W. M.; Kumaraswamy, M. M. 2002. Compressing 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: 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 Report for the Minister for Construction by the KPI Working
Group, January 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, 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)073 3-9364(2007)133:8(574)
Enshassi, A.; Mohamed, S.; Abu Mustafa, 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 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, 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, International
Conference on Construction Process Reengineering, CPR 99, Sydney, 12-13
July.
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 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, W.; Sclove, S. 2003. The Practice
of business statistics. Freeman, New York. Navon, R. 2005. Automated 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, F. Y. 2004. improving performance
of construction industry in Singapore: 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, 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, 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,
Tanzania.
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.
UNRWA. 2007. Projects completion reports, UNRWA, Gaza.
World Bank. 2004. Infrastructure Assessment, Finance, Private
Sector and Infrastructure Group, Middle East & North Africa,
December 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, South Africa.
Adnan Enshassi (1), Sherif Mohamed (2), Saleh Abushaban (3)
(1) School of Civil Engineering, Islamic University of Gaza, P.O.
Box 108, Gaza, Palestine
(2) School of Engineering, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus,
QLD 4222, Australia
(3) Continuing Education Center, Community College of Applied
Science and Technology, P.O. Box 1415, Gaza, Palestine
E-mail: (1)
[email protected]; (2)
[email protected]
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). 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 and conference publications.
Sherif MOHAMED. Professor and Director of the Centre for
Infrastructure Engineering and Management at Griffith University,
Queensland (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, 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