Griffith Research Online

https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au

Factors affecting the performance

of construction projects in the Gaza
Strip
Author
Enshassi, Adnan, Mohamed, Sherif, Abushaban, Saleh

Published
2009

Journal Title
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3846/1392-3730.2009.15.269-280

Copyright Statement
Copyright 2009 Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (VGTU). The attached file is reproduced here in
accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal's website for access to
the definitive, published version.

Downloaded from
http://hdl.handle.net/10072/29561
 JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT
2009
15(3): 269–280

FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION

PROJECTS IN THE GAZA STRIP

Adnan Enshassi1, Sherif Mohamed2, Saleh Abushaban3

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: [email protected]; [email protected]
Received 6 Nov 2008; accepted 3 Apr 2009

Abstract. Construction projects located in the Gaza Strip, Palestine suffer from many problems and complex issues. Con-
sequently, the objective of this paper is to identify the factors affecting the performance of local construction projects; and
to elicit perceptions of their relative importance. A comprehensive literature review was deployed to generate a set of fac-
tors believed to affect project performance. A total of 120 questionnaires were distributed to 3 key groups of project par-
ticipants; namely owners, consultants and contractors. The survey findings indicate that all 3 groups agree that the most
important factors affecting project performance are: delays because of borders/roads closure leading to materials shortage;
unavailability of resources; low level of project leadership skills; escalation of material prices; unavailability of highly ex-
perienced and qualified personnel; and poor quality of available equipment and raw materials. Based on these findings, the
paper recommends that: 1) project owners must work collaboratively with contractors and facilitate regular payments in
order to overcome delays, disputes and claims; 2) project participants should actively have their input in the process of de-
cision-making; and 3) continuous coordination and relationship between project participants are required through the pro-
ject life cycle in order to solve problems and develop project performance.
Keywords: performance, owners, consultants, contractors, projects.

1. Introduction is apparently below expectation; it is not uncommon to

learn of local projects that have not been completed or
Throughout the world, the business environment within significantly delayed. This poor performance of many
which construction organizations operate continues to local contractors has huge implications in terms of their
change rapidly. Organizations failing to adapt and re- competitiveness (Zulu and Chileshe 2008).
spond to the complexity of the new environment tend to The construction industry is complex in its nature
experience survival problems (Lee et al. 2001). With because it comprises large numbers of parties as owners
increasing higher users' requirements, environmental (clients), contractors, consultants, stakeholders, and regu-
awareness and limited resources on one side, and high lators. Despite this complexity, the industry plays a major
competition for construction business marketplace on the role in the development and achievement of society’s
other side, contractors have to be capable of continuously goals. It is one of the largest industries and contributes to
improving their performance (Samson and Lema 2005). about 10% of the gross national product (GNP) in indust-
A number of studies have been conducted to rialized countries (Navon 2005). Palestine is no
examine factors impacting on project performance in exception; the local construction industry is one of the
developing countries. Faridi and El-Sayegh (2006) repor- main economic engine sectors, supporting the Palestinian
ted that shortage of skills of manpower, poor supervision national economy. However, many local construction
and poor site management, unsuitable leadership, shorta- projects report poor performance due to many evidential
ge and breakdown of equipment among others contribute project-specific causes such as: unavailability of mate-
to construction delays in the United Arab Emirates. Han- rials; excessive amendments of design and drawings;
son et al. (2003) examined causes of client dissatisfaction poor coordination among participants, ineffective monito-
in the South African building industry and found that ring and feedback, and lack of project leadership skills
conflict, poor workmanship and incompetence of contrac- (UNRWA 2006). The ever-important macro-level politi-
tors to be among the factors which would negatively im- cal and economic factors have also been related to poor
pact on project performance. Mbachu and Nkando (2007) projects performance (UNRWA 2006 & 2007).
established that quality and attitude to service is one of Project performance can be measured and evaluated
the key factors constraining successful project delivery in using a large number of performance indicators that could
South Africa. The performance of contractors in Zambia be related to various dimensions (groups) such as time,
JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT ISSN 1392–3730 print / ISSN 1822–3605 online 269
http:/www.jcem.vgtu.lt DOI: 10.3846/1392-3730.2009.15.269-280
270 A. Enshassi et al. Factors affecting the performance of construction projects in the Gaza Strip

cost, quality, client satisfaction, client changes, business affecting the performance of construction projects in the
performance, health and safety (Cheung et al. 2004; Gaza Strip. Questionnaires were sent to randomly se-
DETR 2000). Time, cost and quality are, however, the 3 lected owners, consultants, and contractors. Consultants
predominant performance evaluation dimensions. Ano- were identified from the listings of consultants associa-
ther interesting way of evaluating project performance is tion; the target populations of contractors were companies
through 2 common sets of indicators (Pheng and Chuan registered with Palestinian contractors union. 120 ques-
2006). The first set is related to the owner, users, stake- tionnaires were distributed as follows: 25 to owners; 35
holders, and the general public; the groups of people, who to consultants; and 60 to contractors. 88 were received
will look at project performance from the macro (response rate of 73%) as follows: 17 (70%) from own-
viewpoint. The second set comprises the developer and ers; 25 (72%) from consultants; and 46 (77%) from con-
the contractor; the groups of people who will look at tractors as respondents. The respondents were asked to
project performance from the micro viewpoint. indicate, based on their local experience the level of im-
Generally, performance dimensions may have one portance of each one of the identified 63 factors of per-
or more indicators, and could be influenced by various formance on a five-point Likert scale as: not important,
project characteristics. For example, Dissanayaka and slightly, moderately, very, and extremely important. The
Kumaraswamy (1999) found that project time and cost questionnaire has been validated by the criterion-related
performances get influenced by project characteristics, reliability test which measures the correlation coefficient
procurement system, project team performance, client between the factors affecting the performance of con-
representation's characteristics, contractor characteristics, struction projects in one field and the whole field, and
design team characteristics, and external conditions. Sim- structure validity test (Spearman test).
ilarly, Iyer and Jha (2005) identified many factors as The respondents were experienced construction pro-
having influence on project cost performance, these inc- ject managers, site engineers/office engineers, and orga-
lude: project manager's competence, top management nizations’ managers (with average experience of 20 years
support, project manager's coordinating and leadership in the construction industry). 63 factors believed to affect
skills, monitoring and feedback by the participants, deci- project performance were considered in this study and
sion-making, coordination among project participants, were listed under 10 groups based on the literature
owners' competence, social condition, economic condi- reviewed (Okuwoga 1998; Dissanayaka and Kumaras-
tion, and climatic condition. Coordination among project wamy 1999; Reichelt and Lynies 1999; Karim and Ma-
participants, however, was identified as the most signifi- rosszeky 1999; Brown and Adams 2000; DETR 2000;
cant of all the factors, having maximum influence on cost Lehtonen 2001; Chan 2001; Samson and Lema 2002;
performance. Interestingly, Love et al. (2005) examined Kuprenas 2003; Cheung et al. 2004; Iyer and Jha 2005;
project time-cost performance relationship, and their Navon 2005; Love et al. 2005; Ugwa and Haupt 2007).
results indicate that cost is a poor predictor of time pe- The performance factors were summarized and collected
rformance. Elyamany et al. (2007) introduced a perfor- according to previous studies and others as recommended
mance evaluation model for construction companies in by local experts. The main groups considered in this pa-
order to provide a proper tool for the company's owners, per are: time, quality, productivity, client satisfaction,
shareholders and funding agencies to evaluate the pe- regular and community satisfaction, people, health and
rformance of construction companies in Egypt. safety, innovation and learning, and environment.
The above examples demonstrate that there is a ple- The relative importance index method (RII) was
thora of factors with the potential to affect the different used herein to determine owners’, consultants’, and cont-
dimensions of project performance. As such, this paper ractors’ perceptions of the relative importance of the
builds upon the vast amount of published studies (Cheung identified performance factors. The RII was computed as
et al. 2004; DETR 2000; Karim and Marosszeky 1999; (Cheung et al. 2004; Iyer and Jha 2005; Ugwu and Haupt
Dissanayaka and Kumaraswamy 1999; Ofori et al. 2004; 2007):
Samson and Lema 2002; Iyer and Jha 2005; Love et al.
RII =
∑W ,
2005; UNRWA 2006 & 2007; Ugwu and Haupt 2007; A× N
Enshassi et al. 2007; Alinaitwe et al. 2007) in order to
where W is the weight given to each factor by the re-
identify a comprehensive list of factors affecting the pe-
spondents and ranges from 1 to 5; A – the highest
rformance of construction projects. Following this, the
weight = 5; N – the total number of respondents.
paper reports on the findings of a survey targeting project
To determine whether there is a significant degree of
owners, consultants and contractors, in an attempt to shed
agreement among the 3 groups of respondents (owners,
some light on how each project party perceives the relati-
contractors and consultants), Kendall's coefficient of con-
ve importance of these factors. Finally, the paper formu-
cordance is used as a measure of agreement among raters.
lates a number of recommendations in order to bridge the
Kendall's coefficient of concordance indicates the degree
gap between the different perceptions thus improving the
of agreement on a zero to one scale, and is computed by
level of project performance in the Gaza Strip.
the following equation (Moore et al. 2003; Frimpong et al.
2003):
2. Methodology
12U − 3 m 2 n(n − 1)2
A questionnaire survey was used to elicit the attitude of W= ,
owners, consultants, and contractors towards the factors m 2n(n − 1)

270
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 2009, 15(3): 269–280 271

where: 3. Results and discussion

n
U = ∑ (∑ R ) , 2 3.1. Factors affecting the performance of construction
i =1 projects
n – number of factors; m – number of groups; j – the fac-
Table 1 summarizes the computed RIIs and their ranks as
tors 1, 2,…, N.
perceived by the 3 responding groups.
Null hypothesis: H0: There is insignificant degree of
agreement among owners, contractors and consultants.
• Alternative hypothesis: H1: There is a statistical-
ly significant degree of agreement among owners, cont-
ractors and consultants.

Table 1. Summary of relative importance index and rank for factors affecting the performance of construction projects
Owner Consultant Contractor
Performance factors
RII Rank RII Rank RII Rank
(1) Cost factors
Market share of organization 0.600 54 0.709 39 0.726 39
Liquidity of organization 0.729 31 0.842 5 0.839 10
Cash flow of project 0.812 14 0.800 11 0.848 9
Profit rate of project 0.694 38 0.776 14 0.739 38
Overhead percentage of project 0.647 48 0.687 49 0.662 47
Project design cost 0.500 63 0.688 43 0.582 63
Material and equipment cost 0.812 14 0.776 14 0.813 16
Project labour cost 0.741 27 0.744 22 0.739 37
Project overtime cost 0.588 58 0.600 59 0.617 55
Motivation cost 0.600 54 0.584 61 0.609 58
Cost of rework 0.588 58 0.672 51 0.587 62
Cost of variation orders 0.565 62 0.688 43 0.662 46
Waste rate of materials 0.650 46 0.624 57 0.639 51
Regular project budget update 0.638 50 0.742 24 0.743 35
Cost control system 0.725 33 0.728 28 0.765 32
Escalation of material prices 0.847 5 0.832 7 0.889 4
Differentiation of currency prices 0.788 18 0.808 9 0.874 5
(2) Time factors
Site preparation time 0.682 42 0.664 53 0.596 61
Planned time for construction 0.753 26 0.760 18 0.765 30
Percentage of orders delivered late 0.694 40 0.768 17 0.774 29
Time needed to implement variation orders 0.706 35 0.704 40 0.693 43
Time needed to rectify defects 0.659 44 0.672 51 0.639 50
Average delay in claim approval 0.650 46 0.728 28 0.765 30
Average delay in regular payments 0.824 11 0.776 14 0.839 11
Unavailability of resources 0.871 3 0.858 2 0.904 3
Average delay because of closures leading to materials shortage 0.941 1 0.896 1 0.943 1
(3) Quality factors
Conformance to specification 0.882 2 0.808 9 0.822 13
Unavailability of competent staff 0.859 4 0.848 3 0.865 6
Quality of equipment and raw materials 0.835 9 0.840 6 0.861 7
Quality assessment system in organization 0.706 35 0.712 35 0.743 34
Quality training/meeting 0.659 45 0.728 28 0.674 44
(4) Productivity factors
Project complexity 0.729 31 0.712 35 0.761 33
Number of new projects / year 0.600 54 0.688 43 0.630 53
Management-labour relationship 0.776 22 0.688 43 0.796 22
Absenteeism rate through project 0.776 20 0.688 43 0.743 36
Sequencing of work according to schedule 0.800 17 0.816 8 0.804 20
272 A. Enshassi et al. Factors affecting the performance of construction projects in the Gaza Strip

End of Table 1
Owner Consultant Contractor
Performance factors
RII Rank RII Rank RII Rank
(5) Client satisfaction factors
Information coordination between owner and project parties 0.729 29 0.792 12 0.809 19
Leadership skills for project manager 0.835 7 0.848 3 0.904 2
Speed and reliability of service to owner 0.718 34 0.744 22 0.822 13
Number of disputes between owner and project parties 0.753 24 0.728 28 0.720 40
Number of rework incidents 0.635 51 0.712 35 0.627 54
(6) Regular and community satisfaction factors
Cost of compliance to regulators requirements 0.600 54 0.648 55 0.604 59
Number of non-compliance events 0.635 51 0.624 57 0.614 56
Quality and availability of regulator documentation 0.647 49 0.736 25 0.653 48
Site condition problems 0.788 18 0.712 35 0.707 41
(7) People factors
Employee attitudes 0.682 41 0.728 28 0.795 23
Recruitment and competence development 0.753 24 0.688 43 0.809 17
Employees motivation 0.765 23 0.696 42 0.791 24
Belonging to work 0.835 9 0.736 25 0.849 8
(8) Health and safety factors
Application of health and safety factors in organization 0.700 37 0.728 28 0.787 25
Project location is safe to reach 0.694 38 0.704 40 0.774 28
Reportable accidents rate in project 0.729 29 0.680 50 0.600 60
Assurance rate of project 0.671 43 0.632 56 0.635 52
(9) Innovation and learning factors
Learning from own experience and past history 0.847 5 0.752 20 0.818 15
Learning from best practice and experience of others 0.824 12 0.760 18 0.822 12
Work group 0.776 20 0.736 25 0.787 27
Review of failures and solving them 0.824 12 0.752 20 0.809 17
(10) Environmental factors
Air quality 0.588 58 0.592 60 0.671 45
Noise level 0.565 61 0.512 63 0.613 57
Wastes around the site 0.635 51 0.584 61 0.649 49
Climate condition 0.729 28 0.656 54 0.707 41

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

Owner Consultant Contractor

Factors
RII Rank RII Rank RII Rank
Escalation of material prices 0.847 5 0.832 7 0.889 4
Unavailability of resources as planned through the project duration 0.871 3 0.858 2 0.904 3
Average delay because of closures leading to materials shortage 0.941 1 0.896 1 0.943 1
Unavailability of personals with high experience and qualification 0.859 4 0.848 3 0.865 6
Quality of equipments and raw materials in project 0.835 9 0.840 6 0.861 7
Leadership skills for project manager 0.835 7 0.848 3 0.904 2

Table 2 illustrates the top significant factors affec- According to owners, consultants, and contractors, it
ting the performance of construction projects. It can be seems that the average delay because of closures leading
inferred from this table that 3 most important factors to materials shortage was the most important performance
according to the perception of owner, consultant, and factor as it has the first rank among all factors with relati-
contractor are: average delay because of closures leading ve index (RII) = 0.941 for owners, 0.896 for consultants,
to materials shortage, unavailability of resources, and and 0.943 for contractors. This agreement between all
leadership skills for project manager. target groups is traced to the difficult political situation
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 2009, 15(3): 269–280 273

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

Owner Consultant Contractor

Performance groups
RII Rank RII Rank RII Rank
Cost 0.679 8 0.724 5 0.726 7
Time 0.753 4 0.757 3 0.769 5
Quality 0.792 2 0.787 1 0.794 3
Productivity 0.736 5 0.718 6 0.747 6
Client satisfaction 0.734 6 0.765 2 0.779 4
Regular and community satisfaction 0.668 9 0.680 9 0.646 10
People 0.759 3 0.712 7 0.812 1
Health and safety 0.698 7 0.686 8 0.699 8
Innovation and learning 0.821 1 0.744 4 0.804 2
Environment 0.629 10 0.586 10 0.660 9

from which the Gaza Strip suffers. Local construction pro- le group is the most important one for contractors because
jects suffer from a number of problems because of closures contractors remarked on competence development between
and materials shortage. These problems can be considered employees and belonging to work strongly affect producti-
as an obstacle for time performance of projects. vity, cost, and time performance of contractors.
As indicated in Table 3, the quality group has been The innovation and learning group has been ranked
ranked by the owners’ respondents in the second position by the owners’ respondents in the first position with RII
with RII equal to 0.792. It has been ranked by the consul- equal to 0.821. It has been ranked by the consultants’
tants’ respondents in the first position with RII equal to respondents in the 4th position with RII equal to 0.744
0.787 and has been ranked by the contractors’ respon- and has been ranked by the contractors’ respondents in
dents in the third position with RII equal to 0.794. This the second position with RII equal to 0.804. This group is
group is the most important one for consultants because the most important one for owners because owners re-
consultants are interested in clients and technical factors. marked that learning from experience and training the
Consultants observed that quality of equipment and raw human resources with skills demanded by the project
materials in project and availability of personnel with strongly affect project performance.
high qualifications strongly affect the quality performan- The following is a brief discussion of the ranking of
ce of a project. factors in groups, as shown in Table 1.
The people group has been ranked by the owners’
respondents in the third position with RII equal to 0.759. It 3.1.1. Group one: cost factors
has been ranked by the consultants’ respondents in the 7th
position with RII equal to 0.712 and has been ranked by The relative importance index (RII) and rank of cost fac-
the contractors’ respondents in the first position with RII tors are summarized in Table 4. Escalation of material
equal to 0.812. It is not surprising to observe that the peop- prices has been ranked by the owners’ and contractors’

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

Owner Consultant Contractor
Cost factors group
RII Rank RII Rank RII Rank
Market share of organization 0.600 12 0.709 10 0.726 10
Liquidity of organization 0.729 6 0.842 1 0.839 4
Cash flow of project 0.812 2 0.800 4 0.848 3
Profit rate of project 0.694 8 0.776 5 0.739 9
Overhead percentage of project 0.647 10 0.687 13 0.662 12
Project design cost 0.500 17 0.688 11 0.582 17
Material and equipment cost 0.812 2 0.776 5 0.813 5
Project labour cost 0.741 5 0.744 7 0.739 8
Project overtime cost 0.588 14 0.600 16 0.617 14
Motivation cost 0.600 12 0.584 17 0.609 15
Cost of rework 0.588 14 0.672 14 0.587 16
Cost of variation orders 0.565 16 0.688 11 0.662 11
Waste rate of materials 0.650 9 0.624 15 0.639 13
Regular project budget update 0.638 11 0.742 8 0.743 7
Cost control system 0.725 7 0.728 9 0.765 6
Escalation of material prices 0.847 1 0.832 2 0.889 1
Differentiation of currency prices 0.788 4 0.808 3 0.874 2
274 A. Enshassi et al. Factors affecting the performance of construction projects in the Gaza Strip

respondents in the first position. However, this factor has agreement with our results, as this factor is not important
been ranked by the consultants’ respondents in the second for owners and contractors while it is moderately important
position. It is observed that this factor is more important for consultants. This might be owing to different economic
for owners and contractors because escalation of material and political situations.
prices affects the liquidity of owners and the profit rate of
contractors. Continuous closures of roads in the Gaza 3.1.2. Group two: time factors
Strip lead to rapid shortages of construction materials and
escalation of construction material prices. The relative importance index and rank of time factors are
Differentiation of currency prices has been ranked summarized in Table 5. According to owners, consultants,
by the owners’ respondents in the 4th position. It has and contractors, the average delay because of closures
been ranked by the consultants’ respondents in the 3rd leading to materials shortage was the most important pe-
position and by the contractors’ respondents in the second rformance factor, as it has the first rank among all factors
position. It is not surprising to find out differentiation of with RII = 0.941 for owners, 0.896 for consultants, and
currency prices is more important for contractors than for 0.943 for contractors. This agreement between all target
others because this factor affects contractors' profit rate groups is traced to the difficult political situation from
and cost performance. The cash flow of a project has which the Gaza Strip suffers. Local construction projects
been ranked by the owners’ respondents in the second suffer from complex problems because of closures leading
position. It has been ranked by the consultants’ respon- to materials shortage. These problems can be considered as
dents in the 4th position and by the contractors’ respon- an obstacle for time performance of projects.
dents in the 3rd position. Cash flow is more important for Unavailability of resources as planned through pro-
owners and contractors than for consultants, because it ject duration has been ranked by the owners’ respondents
can give an important evaluation for the owners' and the in the 3rd position. It has been ranked by the consultants’
contractors' cost performance at any stage of project. respondents in the 2nd position and by the contractors’
Material and equipment cost has been ranked by the respondents in the 3rd ane. This factor can be considered
owners’ respondents in the second position, but it has as important for 3 parties and scores a similar rank from
been ranked by the consultants’ and the contractors’ res- all of them. This factor directly affects the project pe-
pondents in the 5th position. This indicates that this factor rformance such as time. If resources are not available as
is more important for owners than for others. Material planned through project duration, the project will suffer
and equipment cost is one of the project cost components from the problem of time performance. Average delay in
that affects owners' liquidity and project budget. Our payment from owner to contractor has been ranked by the
results do not align with those of Iyer and Jha (2005) and owners’, consultants’, and contractors’ respondents in the
Ugwu and Haupt (2007) as materials and equipment cost 3rd position. This agreement between parties is traced to
rarely affect the cost performance of Indian and South disputes that will happen between project parties, when
African construction projects. This can be attributed to the payment from owner is delayed. This will affect pro-
different economic and political situations. ject performance, especially time criteria. Karim and
Liquidity of organisation has been ranked by the Marosszeky (1999) are in agreement with our result, as
owners’ respondents in the 6th position. It has been ranked the average delay in payment from owner to contractor
by the consultants’ respondents in the first position and by affects the time performance.
the contractors’ respondents in the 4th position. Consul- Percentage of orders delivered late has been ranked
tants considered this factor as the most important one be- by the owners’ respondents in the 6th position and by the
cause cost performance of any project depends mainly on consultants’ and contractors’ respondents in the 4th posi-
the organisation liquidity. Our result is in line with those of tion. This factor has the same rank for contractors and
Samson and Lema (2002), as liquidity of the organisation consultants and it is more important for them because it is
is very important for evaluating of project budget and cost related to contractual relationships between them. The
performance. However, Ugwu and Haupt (2007) are not in contractor cannot implement any stage through a project

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

Owner Consultant Contractor
Time factors group
RII Rank RII Rank RII Rank
Site preparation time 0.682 7 0.664 9 0.596 9
Planned time for project construction 0.753 4 0.760 5 0.765 5
Percentage of orders delivered late 0.694 6 0.768 4 0.774 4
Time needed to implement variation orders 0.706 5 0.704 7 0.693 7
Time needed to rectify defects 0.659 8 0.672 8 0.639 8
Average delay in claim approval 0.650 9 0.728 6 0.765 5
Average delay in payment from owner to contractor 0.824 3 0.776 3 0.839 3
Unavailability of resources as planned through project duration 0.871 2 0.858 2 0.904 2
Average delay because of closures leading to materials shortage 0.941 1 0.896 1 0.943 1
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 2009, 15(3): 269–280 275

without having orders from the project consultant. Plan- by the consultants’ and contractors’ respondents in the
ned time for project construction has been ranked by the 2nd position and by the owners’ respondents in the 3rd
owners’ respondents in the 4th position and by the con- one. This factor is more important for consultants and
sultants’ and contractors’ respondents in the 5th position. contractors than for owners, as they usually want mate-
This factor is more important for owners as they usually rials applied in a project to be of good quality and accor-
want their projects completed as early as possible. ding to specification.

3.1.3. Group three: quality factors 3.1.4. Group four: productivity factors
The relative importance index and rank of quality factors The relative importance index and rank of productivity
are summarized in Table 6. Unavailability of personnel factors are summarized in Table 7. Sequencing of work
with high experience and qualifications has been ranked according to schedule has been ranked by owners, con-
by consultants’ and contractors’ respondents in the first sultants, and contractors in the first position. This factor is
position and by owners’ respondents in the second one. the most important one for 3 parties because sequencing
This factor is very important for 3 parties because avail- the work according to schedule assists them to conduct a
ability of personnel with high experience and qualifica- project according to scheduled time for project comple-
tions assist them to implement their project with a profes- tion. Our results are align with those of Samson and Le-
sional and successful performance. ma (2002), as sequencing of work affects the productivity
Participation of managerial levels in decision- performance of contractors.
making has been ranked by the owners’, consultants’, and Management-labour relationship has been ranked by
contractors’ respondents in the 4th position. This factor owners’ and contractors’ respondents in the 2nd position
scored the same rank from all parties because sharing the and by consultants’ respondents in the 3rd one. This fac-
managerial levels with decision-making will lead to better tor is considered as important for 3 parties as manage-
implementation and performance of a project and will ment-labour relationship can assist them by strong coor-
satisfy the 3 parties to a greater degree. Iyer and Jha dination and motivation between labour level and
(2005) are in agreement with our results as this factor is managerial level. This will lead to an improvement in
important to 3 parties because it will improve overall productivity and performance of projects.
performance of a construction project. Number of new projects per year has been ranked
Conformance to specification has been ranked in the by owners’ and contractors’ respondents in the 5th posi-
first position for owners, but it has been ranked in the 3rd tion and has been ranked by consultants’ respondents in
position for both of consultants and contractors. This the 3rd position. This factor is considered more important
factor is more important for owners, as it is significant for consultants. Owners and contractors considered the
and related to client satisfaction. The owners usually seek number of new projects/year rarely affect the performan-
to implement their project according to required specifi- ce of projects. Consultants believed that number of new
cations. Our results are align with those of Iyer and Jha projects/year affect the degree of experiences and skills
(2005), as this factor is significant for owners because it learned from executed projects and that will affect the
is strongly related to client satisfaction. Quality of degree of project performance based on previous or cur-
equipment and raw materials in a project has been ranked rent experiences.

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 specification 0.882 1 0.808 3 0.822 3
Unavailability of personals with high experience and qualification 0.859 2 0.848 1 0.865 1
Quality of equipments and raw materials in project 0.835 3 0.840 2 0.861 2
Participation of managerial levels with decision-making 0.812 4 0.784 4 0.800 4
Quality assessment system in organization 0.706 5 0.712 6 0.743 5
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 projects/year 0.600 5 0.688 3 0.630 5
Management-labour relationship 0.776 2 0.688 3 0.796 2
Absenteeism rate through project 0.776 2 0.688 3 0.743 4
Sequencing of work according to schedule 0.800 1 0.816 1 0.804 1
276 A. Enshassi et al. Factors affecting the performance of construction projects in the Gaza Strip

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 between owner and project parties 0.729 3 0.792 2 0.809 3
Leadership skills for project manager 0.835 1 0.848 1 0.904 1
Speed and reliability of service to owner 0.718 4 0.744 3 0.822 2
Number of disputes between owner and project parties 0.753 2 0.728 4 0.720 4
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 satisfaction group
RII Rank RII Rank RII Rank
Cost of compliance to regulators requirements 0.600 4 0.648 3 0.604 4
Number of non-compliance to regulation 0.635 3 0.624 4 0.614 3
Quality and availability of regulator documentation 0.647 2 0.736 1 0.653 2
Neighbours and site conditions problems 0.788 1 0.712 2 0.707 1

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

3.1.5. Group 5: client satisfaction factors 3.1.6. Group 6: regular and community satisfaction
factors
The relative importance index and rank of client satisfac-
tion factors are summarized in Table 8. Leadership skills The relative importance index and rank of regular and
for project managers have been ranked by owners’, con- community satisfaction factors are summarized in Ta-
sultants’, and contractors’ respondents in the 1st position. ble 9. Neighbours and site condition problems have been
This factor is the most important one for 3 parties be- ranked by the owners’ and contractors’ respondents in the
cause leadership skills for project managers affect the 1st position and by the consultants’ respondents in the
degree of project performance and client satisfaction. second one. This factor is more important for owners and
Cheung et al. (2004) observed that this factor is important contractors because it is strongly related to client satisfac-
for effectiveness of project performance. Our results are tion and contractors’ performance.
align with those of Cheung et al. (2004), as this factor is Quality and availability of regulator documentation
important for 3 parties because it is significant for effec- has been ranked by the consultants’ respondents in the 1st
tiveness of project performance. position and by the owners’ and contractors’ respondents
Number of reworks has been ranked by owners’, in the 2nd position. Quality and availability of regulator
consultants’, and contractors’ respondents in the 5th posi- documentation is more important for consultants because
tion. This factor has the same rank for 3 parties because it affects the performance of consultants and community
number of reworks affect the relationship between them. satisfaction. This result is in line with Samson and Lema
Number of disputes between owner and project parties (2002), as this factor affects the contractors' performance
have been ranked by owners’ respondents in the 2nd posi- because it affects regular and community satisfactions.
tion and by consultants’ and contractors’ respondents in It can be understood, that there is a strong agree-
the 4th position. This factor is more important for owners ment between owners and contractors for ranking all
because disputes between owner and project parties will regular and community satisfaction factors because they
affect relationships between them and the degree of client are more related to contractors' performance and client
satisfaction will be affected. All of that affects the pe- satisfaction. Generally, it can be said that 3 parties are in
rformance of project. Information coordination between agreement for ranking these factors.
owner and project parties has been ranked by the owners’
and contractors’ respondents in the 3rd position and by 3.1.7. Group 7: people factors
the consultants’ respondents in the 2nd position.
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 posi-
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 2009, 15(3): 269–280 277

tion. This factor is the most important one for 3 parties tant for consultants and contractors because the access to
because belonging to work usually improves productivity the site is more relevant to them and affects the degree of
and performance of project. Iyer and Jha (2005) are in safety for their employees.
agreement with our result as this factor is important for
three parties because belonging to works improves pro- 3.1.9. Group 9: innovation and learning factors
ductivity and performance of a project.
Employees' motivation has been ranked by the The relative importance index and rank of innovation and
owners’ respondents in the 2nd position. It has been ran- learning factors are summarized in Table 12. Learning
ked by the consultants’ respondents in the 3rd position from own experience and past history has been ranked by
and by the contractors’ respondents in the 4th position. the owners’ respondents in the 1st position and by the
This factor is less important for contractors because it is consultants’ and contractors’ respondents in the 2nd posi-
rarely that contractors motivate employees in the Gaza tion. This factor is more important for owners than for
Strip. Iyer and Jha (2005) remarked that this factor is others. Owners can use their own experience and past
moderately important for contractors because of absence history to improve and develop performance of their cur-
of motivation systems in construction projects. However, rent and future projects. Samson and Lema (2002) re-
other factors are ranked as more important for one party marked that learning from own experience and past his-
than others, as shown previously. tory affects the performance of projects because it affects
the innovation and learning required to construct projects.
3.1.8. Group 8: health and safety factors Learning from best practice and experience of
others has been ranked by the owners’ respondents in the
The relative importance index and rank of health and 3rd position and by the consultants’ and contractors’ res-
safety factors are summarized in Table 11. Application of pondents in the 1st position. Contractors and consultants
health and safety factors in organizations has been ranked considered this factor as a more important one than
by the consultants’ and contractors’ respondents in 1st owners did. This is because learning from best practice
position, but has been ranked by the owners’ respondents and experience of others can improve and develop con-
in the 2nd one. However, this factor is very important for sultants’ and contractors’ performance.
3 parties because application of health and safety factors Training the human resources in the skills deman-
in construction projects will improve overall performance ded by the project has been ranked by the owners’ res-
of such projects. This result is in line with Cheung et al. pondents in the 2nd position. It has been ranked by the
(2004), as this factor strongly affects the performance of consultants’ respondents in the 5th position and by the
projects because it affects the safety of employees. contractors’ respondents in the 4th one. This factor is less
Reportable accident rate in project has been ranked important for contractors and consultants in the Gaza
by the owners’ respondents in the 1st position. It has been Strip, as they seldom train their employees in required
ranked by the consultants’ respondents in the 3rd position and professional skills.
and by the contractors’ respondents in the 4th position.
Owners considered this factor as the most important one, 3.1.10. Group 10: environmental factors
because reportable accident rate usually affects the safety
performance and the client satisfaction degree in const- The relative importance index and rank of environment
ruction projects. Ease of access to the site (location of factors are summarized in Table 13. Climate condition at
project) has been ranked by the owners’ respondents in the site has been ranked by the owners’, consultants’, and
the 3rd position and by the consultants’ and contractors’ contractors’ respondents in the 1st position. This factor is
respondent in the 2nd position. This factor is more impor- the most important one for them, because it affects the

Table 11. Summary of relative importance index and rank of health and safety factors
Owner Consultant Contractor
Health and safety factors group
RII Rank RII Rank RII Rank
Application of health and safety factors in organization 0.700 2 0.728 1 0.787 1
Easiness to reach the site (location of project) 0.694 3 0.704 2 0.774 2
Reportable accidents rate in project 0.729 1 0.680 3 0.600 4
Assurance rate of project 0.671 4 0.632 4 0.635 3

Table 12. Summary of relative importance index and rank of innovation factors
Owner Consultant Contractor
Innovation and learning factors
RII Rank RII Rank RII Rank
Learning from own experience and past history 0.847 1 0.752 2 0.818 2
Learning from best practice and experience of others 0.824 3 0.760 1 0.822 1
Training the human resources in the skills demanded by the project 0.835 2 0.720 5 0.787 4
Work group 0.776 5 0.736 4 0.787 4
Review of failures and solving them 0.824 3 0.752 2 0.809 3
278 A. Enshassi et al. Factors affecting the performance of construction projects in the Gaza Strip

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

productivity and time performance of project. This result The results indicated that the average delay because
is not in agreement with Iyer and Jha (2005), as climate of closures leading to materials shortage was the most
condition is not important for 3 parties. This might be important performance factor, as it has the first rank
because of different location, weather, and environment. among all factors from the perspectives of owners, con-
Noise level has been ranked by the owners’, con- sultants, and contractors. This agreement between all
sultants’, and contractors’ respondents in the 4th position. target groups is traced to the difficult political situation
However, for all parties a noise level is less important from which the Gaza Strip suffers. The most important
than other environmental factors because it is rarely an factors agreed by the owners, consultants, and contractors
issue in the Gaza Strip. Ugwu and Haupt (2007) re- as the main factors affecting the performance of construc-
marked that this factor is not important for owners and tion projects in the Gaza Strip were: escalation of mate-
consultants but it is moderately important for contractors. rial prices, availability of resources as planned through
Generally, noise level affects the productivity perform- project duration, average delay because of closures lea-
ance of construction projects. ding to materials shortage, availability of personnel with
a high experience and qualifications, quality of
3.2. Degree of agreement among responding groups equipment and raw materials in project, and leadership
skills for project managers.
To determine whether there is a significant degree of
Kendall's coefficient of concordance is used to de-
agreement among the 3 groups (owners, contractors, and
termine, whether there is a degree of agreement among
consultants) Kendall's coefficient of concordance is used
performance factors for owners, consultants, and contrac-
as a measure of agreement among raters. For cost, time,
tors. For cost, time, quality, productivity, client satisfac-
quality, productivity, client satisfaction, people, innova-
tion, people, innovation, and learning factors, and all
tion, and learning factors, and all groups together, the p-
groups together, there is a significant degree of agreement
values (Sig.) are less than α = 0.05 (α is the level of sig-
among the owners, consultants, and contractors. This is
nificance), the null hypothesis, H0, is rejected and the
because all owners, consultants, and contractors are con-
alternative hypothesis, H1, is accepted. Therefore, it can
cerned with these groups. On the other hand, for regular
be said that there is a significant degree of agreement
and community satisfaction, health and safety, and envi-
among the owners, contractors and consultants regarding
ronment factors, there is an insignificant degree of agree-
factors affecting the performance of construction projects
ment among the owners, consultants, and contractors. This
in the Gaza Strip.
is because contractors are concerned with these factors
On the other hand, for regular and community satis-
more or less than owners and consultants. The owners and
faction, health and safety, and environment factors, the p-
consultants considered the client and technical factors to be
values (Sig.) are greater than α = 0.05 (α is the level of
more important than the operational ones.
significance), then we do not reject the null hypothesis,
The authors recommended to develop human re-
H0. Therefore, it can be said that there is an insufficient
sources in the construction industry through proper and
evidence to support the alternative hypothesis, H1. Hen-
continuous training programs about construction projects
ce, there is an insignificant degree of agreement among
performance. These programs can update participants’
the owners, contractors, and consultants regarding factors
knowledge and can assist them to be more familiar with
affecting the performance of construction projects in the
project management techniques and processes. Owners
Gaza Strip.
are encouraged to facilitate payment to contractors in
order to overcome delay, disputes, and claims. All mana-
4. Conclusions
gerial levels should participate in sensitive and important
A questionnaire-based survey was used to elicit the atti- decision-making. Continuous coordination and relation-
tude of owners, consultants, and contractors towards fac- ship between project participants are required through
tors affecting the performance of construction projects in project life cycle for solving problems and developing
the Gaza Strip. 120 questionnaires were distributed as project performance.
follows: 25 to owners, 35 to consultants and 60 to con- Consultants should be more interested in design cost
tractors. 88 questionnaires (73%) were returned as fol- by using multi-criteria analysis and choosing the most
lows: 17 from owners, 25 from consultants, and 46 from economical criteria in order to improve their performance
contractors as respondents. The respondents were asked and to increase owners’ satisfaction. In addition, consul-
to indicate the level of importance of each of the 63 fac- tants are urged to facilitate and expedite orders delivered
tors of performance in the Gaza Strip as not important, to contractors to obtain better time performance and to
slightly, moderately, very, and extremely important. minimize disputes and claims. Contractors should not
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 2009, 15(3): 269–280 279

increase the number of projects that cannot be performed study, Journal of Construction Engineering and Mana-
successfully. In addition, contractors should consider gement 133(8): 574–581.
political and business environment risks in their cost doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2007)133:8(574)
estimation for overcoming delay because of closures Enshassi, A.; Mohamed, S.; Abu Mustafa, Z.; Mayer, P. E.
leading to materials shortages. There should be adequate 2007. Factors affecting labor productivity in building pro-
jects in the Gaza Strip, Journal of Civil Engineering and
contingency allowances in order to cover increases in
Management 13(4): 245–254.
material cost. Proper motivation and safety systems
Faridi, A.; El-Sayegh, S. 2006. Significant factors causing delay
should be established for improving the productivity pe-
in the UAE construction industry, Construction Manage-
rformance of construction projects in the Gaza Strip. ment and Economics 24(11): 1167–1176.
Greater application of health and safety factors are neces- doi:10.1080/01446190600827033
sary to overcome problems of safety performance. Frimpong Yaw; Oluwoye, J.; Crawford, L. 2003. Causes of
Contractors are counseled to minimize waste rates delay and cost overruns in construction of groundwater
through project implementation for improving cost. They projects in a developing countries; Ghana as a case study,
should be more interested in conformance to project spe- International Journal of Project Management 21: 321–
cification to overcome disputes, time, and cost perfor- 326. doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00055-8
mance problems. Quality materials should be of a greater Hanson, D.; Mbachu, J.; Nkando, R. 2003. Causes of client
interest for contractors in order to improve cost, time, and dissatisfaction in the South African building industry and
quality performance. This can be done by applying ways of improvement: the contractors' perspectives, in
quality training and meetings that are necessary for pe- CIDB, South Africa.
rforming an improvement. Contractors are urged to be Iyer, K. C.; Jha, K. N. 2005. Factors affecting cost performance:
more interested in sequencing of work according to sche- evidence from Indian construction projects, International
Journal of Project Management 23: 283–295.
dule. In addition, contractors should have a cost engineer
doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.10.003
in their projects to successfully control costs.
Karim, K.; Marosszeky, M. 1999. Process monitoring for pro-
cess re-engineering – using key performance indicators,
References International Conference on Construction Process Reen-
Alinaitwe, H. M.; Mwakali, J. A.; Hansson, B. 2007. Factors gineering, CPR 99, Sydney, 12–13 July.
affecting the productivity of building craftsmen studies of Kuprenas, J. A. 2003. Project management actions to improve
Uganda, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management design phase cost performance, Journal of Management in
13(3): 169–176. Engineering 19(1): 25–32.
Brown, A.; Adams, J. 2000. Measuring the effect of project doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2003)19:1(25)
management on construction outputs: a new approach, In- Lee, A.; Cooper, R.; Aouad, G. 2001. A methodology for desig-
ternational Journal of Project Management 18: 327–335. ning performance measures for the UK construction in-
Cavalieri, S.; Terzi, S.; Macchi, M. 2007. A benchmarking dustry. Salford University.
service for the evaluation and comparison of scheduling Lehtonen Tutu Wegelius. 2001. Performance measurement in
techniques, Computers in Industry 58: 656–666. construction logistics, International Journal of Production
doi:10.1016/j.compind.2007.05.004 Economics 69: 107–116.
Chan, A. P. C. 2001. Time-cost relationship of public sector doi:10.1016/S0925-5273(00)00034-7
projects in Malaysia, International Journal of Project Love, P. E. D.; Tse, R. Y. C.; Edwards, D. J. 2005. Time-cost
Management 19: 223–229. relationships in australian building construction projects,
doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00072-1 Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Chan, A. P. C.; Chan, D. W. M. 2004. Developing a benchmark 131(2): 187–194.
model for project construction time performance in Hong doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:2(187)
Kong, Building and Environment 39: 339–349. Mbachu, J.; Nkando, R. 2007. Factors constraining successful
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2003.08.012 building project implementation in South Africa, Const-
Chan, D. W. M.; Kumaraswamy, M. M. 2002. Compressing ruction Management and Economics 25(1): 39–54.
construction durations: lessons learned from Hong Kong doi:10.1080/01446190600601297
building projects, International Journal of Project Mana- Moore, D.; McCabe, G.; Duckworth, W.; Sclove, S. 2003. The
gement 20: 23–35. doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(00)00032-6 Practice of business statistics. Freeman, New York.
Cheung, S.-O.; Suen, H. C. H.; Cheung, K. K. W. 2004. PPMS: Navon, R. 2005. Automated project performance control of
a Web-based construction project performance monitoring construction projects, Automation in Construction 14:
system, Automation in Construction 13: 361–376. 467–476. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2004.09.006
doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2003.12.001 Ofori, G.; Dulaimi, M. F.; Ling, F. Y. 2004. Improving perfor-
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions mance of construction industry in Singapore: motivators,
(DETR), (2000), KPI Report for the Minister for Const- enablers and lessons for developing countries, Journal of
ruction by the KPI Working Group, January 2000. Construction Research 5(2): 267–289.
Dissanayaka, S. M.; Kumaraswamy, M. M. 1999. Comparing doi:10.1142/S1609945104000188
contributors to time and cost performance in building pro- Okuwoga, A. A. 1998. Cost-time performance of public sector
jects, Building and Environment 34: 31–42. housing projects in Nigeria, Habitat Intl. 22(4): 389–395.
doi:10.1016/S0360-1323(97)00068-1 doi:10.1016/S0197-3975(98)00014-9
Elyamany, A.; Ismail, B.; Zayed, T. 2007. Performance evalua- Pheng, L. S.; Chuan, Q. T. 2006. Environmental factors and
ting model for construction companies: Egyptian case work performance of project managers in the construction
280 A. Enshassi et al. Factors affecting the performance of construction projects in the Gaza Strip

industry, International Journal of Project Management UNRWA. 2006. Projects completion reports, UNRWA, Gaza.
24: 24–37. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.06.001 UNRWA. 2007. Projects completion reports, UNRWA, Gaza.
Reichelt, K.; Lyneis, J. 1999. The dynamic of project perfor- World Bank. 2004. Infrastructure Assessment, Finance, Private
mance: Benchmarking the drivers of cost and schedule Sector and Infrastructure Group, Middle East & North Af-
overrun, European Management Journal 17(2): 135–150. rica, December 2004.
doi:10.1016/S0263-2373(98)00073-5 Zulu, S.; Chileshe, N. 2008. The impact of service quality on
Samson, M.; Lema, N. M. 2005. Development of construction project performance: a case study of building maintenance
contractors performance measurement framework. De- services in Zambia, in Proc. of the 3rd Built Environment
partment of Construction Technology and Management, Conference, Association of Schools of Construction of
University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Southern Africa, Cape Town, South Africa.
Ugwu, O. O.; Haupt, T. C. 2007. Key performance indicators
and assessment methods for infrastructure sustainability –
a South African construction industry perspective, Buil-
ding and Environment 42: 665–680.
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.10.018

VEIKSNIAI, LEMIANTYS STATYBOS PROJEKTŲ ĮGYVENDINIMĄ GAZOS RUOŽE

A. Enshassi, S. Mohamed, S. Abushaban
Santrauka
Statybos projektai Gazos Ruože, Palestinoje, kenčia nuo daugelio problemų ir sudėtingų klausimų. Todėl pagrindinis šio
straipsnio tikslas yra nustatyti veiksnius, darančius įtaką vietos statybos projektams įgyvendinti, ugdyti suvokimą apie jų
santykinę svarbą. Iš viso 120 respondentų buvo suskirstyti į tris pagrindines projektų dalyvių grupes: savininkai, konsul-
tantai ir rangovai. Apklausa parodė, kad visos trys grupės sutinka, kad svarbiausi veiksniai, lemiantys projekto įgyvendi-
nimą, yra: atidėliojimas, susijęs su sienų (kelių) uždarymu ir lemiantis medžiagų stygių; negaunamos atsargos; menki va-
dovavimo projektams įgūdžiai; nepagrįsta medžiagų kaina; patyrusio ir kvalifikuoto personalo stoka ir prasta įrankių ir
žaliavos kokybė. Pasitelkiant šias išvadas, straipsnyje rekomenduojama: 1) projektų savininkai turi dirbti kartu su rango-
vais ir reguliariai atsiskaityti norėdami išvengti atidėliojimų, ginčų ir pretenzijų; 2) projekto dalyviai turėtų aktyviai daly-
vauti priimant spendimus; 3) nuolatinė projekto dalyvių kontrolė ir jų tarpusavio santykis yra reikalingi per visą projekto
įgyvendinimo ciklą norint išspręsti iškilusias problemas ir įgyvendinti projektą.
Reikšminiai žodžiai: įgyvendinimas, savininkai, konsultantai, rangovai, projektai.

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 con-
struction, 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, focus-
ing 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.