International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)

ISSN: 2277-3878, Volume-8 Issue-1S, May 2019

Identification of Project Scheduling Constraints

Using the Quantitative Approach
Nur Mardhiyah Aziz, Faizul Azli Mohd-Rahim, Loo Siaw Chuing, Ee Wen Le

Project planning and project performance are regarded

Abstract: Planning and scheduling is found to be the hardest as two complementary and inseparable issues in project
part of the construction process as they need to deal with management (Idoro, 2012). According to Luu et al. (2009),
uncertainty in the beginning of the project. These 2 factors are
project planning and scheduling is significant in order to
interrelated as any mistakes in any of these factors can cause
project delay. Thus, thorough planning and scheduling are control the projects performance. Nevertheless, some
required to ensure the success of the project. Despite an increased restriction in implementing project scheduling had been
interest in project planning and scheduling, surprisingly, only a reported, which include difficulty in preparing schedules and
few of empirical research on this topic can be found. To deal with hurdles by personnel and authorities as well as high cost in
this issue, this study aims to identify the constraints of project preparation (Alnasseri, H. and R. Aulin, 2016). Ahem et. al.,
planning and scheduling in Malaysian construction projects. An
initial list of 43 contraints was identified from the literature
(2014) reported that lack of knowledge due to incomplete
review. This was followed by a main study comprising a project plans, also affecting the project performance.
quesstionnaire survey of 205 construction industry practitioners Insufficient planning and scheduling due to poor
including a diverse range of construction consultancy practice communication between personnel will also give negative
that include Project Managers, Architects, Civil Engineers, effect to the project performance (Alnuami et al., 2010). In a
Quantity Surveyors as well as contractors. Data obtained were
highly competitive environment, it is crucial for the
analysed using Relative Important Index (RII) and the Spearman
Correlation Coeficient. The analytical result revealed 8 construction industry (CI) to have a proper planning and
constraints as having the greatest impact on project planning and scheduling strategy in order to improve their performance.
schedulling. The implication of the findings implies that the Previous studies were only focusing on problems faced
organisation should consider the identified. during planning and scheduling without giving much
attention on how to overcome the problem. Thus, this
Index Terms: Keywords: Planning and Scheduling, research, study will be conducted on identifying the project
Constraints, Malaysia.
planning and scheduling constraints that focus on the time
I. INTRODUCTION and resource-driven.

Construction industry (CI) plays a vital role in the II. PROJECT PLANNING AND SCHEDULING:
country’s development. However, several researchers DEFINITIONS AND OBJECTIVES
however reported that this industry is facing poor Various definitions for project planning and scheduling in
performance due to failure in term of time performance and construction field can be found. Baldwin and Bordoli (2014),
cost performance (Memon and Rahman et al., 2012; Emam defined project planning as a process that is more than an
and Abdelaal, 2014; and Ali and Kamaruzzaman,2010). assistance that is crucial in order to complete a project
According to Chan and Chan (2004), construction project successfully. According to Mubarak (2015), project planning
performances are measured in terms of cost and time is fundamental and involve various related functions such
performance, quality defects and amount of change orders. scheduling, control of project and cost estimation. Ideally,
Endut (2009) reported that only 46.8% of projects in public project planning is meant to achieve several common factors,
sector and 37.2% of private sector projects in Malaysia were which include project resources, criteria of design, health and
completed within the estimated budget. On the other hand, safety as well as to satisfy stakeholders’ expectations Bordoli
only 33.35% of the private sector projects and 20.5% of the (2014).
public projects were completed within the time frame (Endut, Scheduling on the other hand, were defined as logical
2009). sequencing of activities which include its durations (Yang,
2007). According to PMI (2011), project scheduling involves
Revised Manuscript Received on 04 May 2019 the utilisation of techniques, skills and intuition obtained
Nur Mardhiyah Aziz, Senior Lecturer, Department of Quantity
through experience and knowledge to produce an effective
Surveying, Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya, 50603
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. model of schedule. Demeulemeester and Herroelen (2002)
Faizul Azli Mohd-Rahim, Assoc. Professors, Department of Quantity state that project scheduling is the development of a base plan
Surveying, Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya, 50603 that comprises of precedence, resources start and completion
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Loo Siaw Chuing, Senior Lecturer, Department of Quantity Surveying, dates as well as types of
Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, various resources specified
Malaysia. with its amount for each time.
Ee Wen Le, BSc Quantity Surveyig, Faculty of Built Environment,
University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
According to CIOB, 2011,

Published By:
Retrieval Number: A10540581S19/19©BEIESP Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
374 & Sciences Publication
 Identification of Project Scheduling Constraints Using the Quantitative Approach

project scheduling is defined as the utilisation of III. PLANNING AND SCHEDULING METHODS
mathematical calculations and logical thinking to predict the AND TOOLS
place and date for work to be carried out efficiently and Various methods and tools are used in project planning,
effectively. Despite various definitions of project scheduling, which include simple traditional scheduling approach to the
its main objective is to coordinate construction activities advanced complicated method (Al Nasseri et al., 2013; Ahuja
sequence and timing systematically (Baldwin and Bordoli, and Thiruvengadam, 2004). Traditional scheduling methods
2014). includes bar charts that have evolved from paper-based to
According to Baldwin and Bordoli (2014) planning and computer-based whereas modern scheduling methods are
scheduling tasks cannot be carried out simultaneously. those departed from the traditional scheduling concepts
Scheduling process can only be done after planning and it is (Hajdu, 2011). The examples of traditional methods are
usually were handled by different people. Mubarak (2010) Gantt chart, CPM and PERT whereas modern scheduling
stated that project planning answers the questions of what methods are LPS (Ballard, 2000) and Critical chain project
should be done? How? Whom? When should we do it? management (CCPM) (Goldratt and Cox, 1984) for instance.
Where to do it? While project scheduling only focuses on Table I below summarise the methods used for project
‘when’. This is illustrated in fig. 1 below. planning and scheduling reported by different authors and
researchers.

Table I: Construction project scheduling methods

Construction project scheduling methods
Grapical Evaluation and
Precedence diagrams
Review Technique (GERT)
Program Evaluation and
Critical Path Method (CPM)
Review Technique (PERT)
Basic Networks
(Activity-On-Arrow, Last Planner (LPS)
Fig. 1: Planning and scheduling (Mubarak, 2010) Activity-On-Node)
Linear Scheduling Method
Flow diagrams
In the perspective of project management in construction, (LSM)
project planning and scheduling are interrelated inputs that Critical chain project
Bar charts (Gantt charts)
are planned with the intention to comply with the assigned management (CCPM)
objectives. These objectives must be defined carefully so that Rolling Wave Technique Agile technique
successful project performance can be achieved. Fig. 2 Minimum moment leveling
Monte Carlo technique
provides an overview of planning and scheduling to give a method
general idea on how the related assigned inputs function. Burgess method for leveling
multiple resources
Source: Baldwin and Bordoli (2014); Mubarak (2010); PMI
(2011); Weber (2005); Ballard (2000); Goldratt and Cox
(1984)

The popular project scheduling software commonly used

in market are Primavera Project Planner, Microsoft Project
and Suretrax (Galloway,2005;2006). The study conducted by
Memon and Zin (2011) reveals that approximately 65% of
construction firms in Malaysia adopt Micorsoft Project as a
tool for project scheduling.
Project scheduling methods and tools can be categorized
into two groups: resource-driven scheduling and time-driven
scheduling (Memon and Mohammad, 2011). In the context of
project management, the term of ‘resources’ refers to labour,
equipment and materials (Mubarak, 2010). There are five
methods of modelling resource-driven schedule which
consist of resource aggregation, resource cumulating,
resource allocation, resource smoothing and resource
levelling. On the other hand, time-driven scheduling refer to
Fig. 2: Overview of project planning and scheduling the estimated durations of activities and the relations between
Source: Kerzner (2013) and PMI (2008) each acctivities (Mubarak,
2010). Sufficient
understanding and correct
application of planning and

Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Retrieval Number: A10540581S19/19©BEIESP 375 & Sciences Publication
 International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
ISSN: 2277-3878, Volume-8 Issue-1S, May 2019

scheduling methods and tools is important to optimize • Lack of education/ AlNasseri and Aulin
resources effectively (Bertelsen et al. 2007). The familiarity knowledge and training (2015), AlNasseri and
of practitioners towards the application of different • Incompatibility of planning Aulin (2015), Hameed
scheduling methods was limited, which is believed to be one methods with the project’s (2005), Nepal et al.
of the reason why they encounter difficulty in scheduling nature (eg complexity and size) (2006), Venkatesh et al.

KNOWLEDGE/ TRAINING
activities of project (White and Fortune, 2002). (2012), Yang et al.
• Poor/ slow decision-making
(2011), Burke (2003),
regarding activity criticality
IV. CONSTRAINTS IN PROJECT PLANNING AND Jurf and Beheiry (2012),
• Lack of effective leadership
SCHEDULING Memon and Zin (2010),
• Inaccurate/ unrealistic/ poor
From literature review, constraints in project planning and González et al. (2014),
estimates for effort, duration
scheduling were identified. These constraints were then Hameri and Heikkilä
and activity relationships
group according to their theme and summarise in table II (2002), Muller and
• Deficiencies of
below. Turner (2010), Voth
understanding / awareness of
(2009), Ahuja and
the concepts, activity criticality
Table II: Summary of constraints identified Dozzi (1994), Kerzner
and related resources
(2013), Abbas et al.
Constraints References • insufficient expertise of (2016), Fowler et al.
AlNasseri and Aulin professionals (1995), Abeyasinghe et
• Costly to prepare (2015), Memon and Zin • incorrect perception of
COST

al. (2001), Trietsch

• Allocation of budget is (2010), Kerzner (2013), professionals (2005)
required Baldwin and Bordoli • Has no guidance to follow
(2014) the regarded preparation AlNasseri and Aulin
• Resources allocation and Abbas et al. (2016), • Insufficient / lack of support (2015), Memon and Zin
availability/ shortage problems AlNasseri and Aulin from project stakeholders in (2010), Venkatesh et al.
MANAGEMENT ISSUES

(over-commitment or minimal (2015), Ahuja and planning and preparing (2012), Abbas et al.
allocation) Thiruvengadam (2004), schedules (2016), AlNasseri and
• Absence of
RESOURCES

Memon and Zin (2010), • Trivial control and reporting Aulin, 2015, Davis
resource-constrained Kerzner (2013), system between management (2014), Iyer and Jha
scheduling for dealing with Abeyasinghe et al. levels (lack of coordination/ (2006), González et al.
uncertainty problems (2001), AlNasseri and communication between (2014), Hameri and
• Reassessment of resource Aulin (2015), constructors & consultants, Heikkilä (2002), Muller
requirements for individual Elmaghraby et al. technical and key personnel) and Turner (2010), Voth
activities. (2003), Voth, (2009), • not getting key stakeholder (2009), Ahuja and
• Inability to utilize resources Mulholland and involve at early stages Dozz, (1994), Kerzner
as originally planned Christian (1999) • inability to handle employee (2013), Lewis (2011)
Ahuja and
• Time-cost optimization workload imbalances
Thiruvengadam (2004),
TECHNOLOGY

• Lack of time/ time-required • Absence of new technology

AlNasseri and Aulin
Abbas et al.,(2016),
TIME

• Inadequate timeframe (2015), Mokhtari et al.

AlNasseri and Aulin and software for planning and
provided (2011), Noronha and
(2015), Kerzner (2013), scheduling
• Failure of suppliers or Sarma (1991), Taroun
Baldwin and Bordoli • limitations of scheduling
contractors to deliver on time. (2014), Ahuja and
(2014) tools (eg CPM, PERT)
Thiruvengadam (2004)
• Uncertainty value / changes/ Ahuja and Dozzi
unforeseen bottlenecks (eg. (1994), Ahuja and
UNCERTAINTY

activity duration, cost Thiruvengadam (2004),

objective, operating policies, Kerzner (2013),
construction methods, Venkatesh et al. (2012),
technical difficulties, AlNasseri and Aulin
environmental conditions) (2015), Hoel (1999),
• Absence of schedule Mulholland and
contingency Christian (1999)

Published By:
Retrieval Number: A10540581S19/19©BEIESP Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
376 & Sciences Publication
 Identification of Project Scheduling Constraints Using the Quantitative Approach

• Reluctance to allow questionnaire. Respondents were asked to rate these

construction review constraints based on five-point Likert-type scales that vary
HUMAN’S BEHAVIOUR

• Deficiencies of genuine from 1= No Impact to 5= Extremely High Impact. Potential

commitment of project questionnaire respondents’ organisations were selected from
Memon and Zin (2010),
PROBLEM

stakeholders various databases in order to ensure diversity of view in term

Venkatesh et al. (2012),
• Authority does not enforce of constraints in project planning and scheduling. In this
Kerzner (2013), research, the targeted respondents are the Project Managers,
schedules
Wilkinson (2001), Iyer
• Hurdles by personnel/ Architects (registered under Board of Architects Malaysia),
and Jha (2006) Civil Engineers (registered under Board of Engineers
authorities
• Poor morale Malaysia), Quantity Surveyors (registered under Board of
• Lack of respect of other Quantity Surveyors Malaysia) and Grade 7 contractors
professionals registered under category Building Construction under CIDB
• scheduling fast-track throughout Malaysia.
CONSTRUCTION

Ahuja and
construction projects
Thiruvengadam (2004), VI. DATA ANALYSIS
• overly complex or large
AlNasseri and Aulin The perceived importance of the factors are measured
projects
(2015), Memon and Zin
• Hard to prepare plan and through a 5-point Likert scale with graded item responses
(2010), Venkatesh et al. ranging from “1=No Impact” to “5=Extremely Important”,
schedule/ complexity of
(2012), Voth (2009) hence the issues are treated as ordinal variables. The relevant
schedule
• Impediments due to non-parametric tests were used encompass of mean and
interference Relative Importance Index (RII) for data ranking and
• Difficult to update supported by Pearson correlation coefficient.
• Exhaustive (can only be Relative Importance Index (RII) was used to rank the
solved by using computer factors. The RII was calculated using the following formula:
software for engineering work
bench) RII = (∑W)/AN (1)
• ineffectiveness of the
Memon and Zin (2010), W is the weighting given for each factors by the
clients’ decision when finally
Venkatesh et al. (2012),
OTHERS

approving the detailed scope respondents range from 1 to 5, A is the highest weight (5 in
AlNasseri and Aulin this case) and N is the total number of sample (in this case
definition
(2015), Ahuja and N=205). According to Kazaz et. al. (2008), the RII value can
• insufficient adoption of
Dozzi (1994), Kerzner be categories as follows: 0.20 ≤RII ≤0.36 (not significant);
lessons from past projects
(2013), Lewis (2011) 0.36<RII ≤0.52 (somewhat significant); 0.52<RII ≤0.68
when developing front end
(Significant); 0.68<RII ≤0.84 (very significant); 0.84<RII
planning for the new project
≤1.0 (extremely significant). Based on this scale, there are 33
• Shortage of realistic
very significant constraints and 3 significant constraints.
information about the project
The correlation for these factors was then tested to identify
strategy
their relative importance. For this, Pearson correlation
• continuous readjustments to
coefficient was selected as it is a common non-parametric
the WBS primarily from scope
method used for correlating factors where:
changes
n(∑xy)−(∑x)(∑y)
Each of these constrints have direct influence on the
r= (2)
project performance in term of time, cost and quality.
Construction delay can be regard as common phenomenon in √ [n∑x2−(∑x)2][n∑y2−(∑y)2]
Malaysia where the actual progress of construction works is where,
beyond the planned schedule (Hamzah et al., 2011). Delay r is the value for Pearson correlation coefficient, x is the
issues affect negatively on project stakeholders such as value of the first set of data, y is the value in the second set of
owners, construction professionals, designers and others data and n is the total number of values. Using a standard
(Faridi and El-Sayegh, 2006). The extension of time given to table of probabilities, p, for, the usual criterion is adopted in
the contractor in order for him to complete the project usually that p<0.05 denotes a significant correlation of the
will require additional cost, thus leading to cost overrun respondents' rating of the constraints in project planning and
(Faridi and El-Sayegh, 2006). Time overrun and cost overrun scheduling.
will then lead to the poor quality of construction, where the The employment of such a test produces a mathematical
contractor trying to complete his job in the shortest time value that exhibits the strength of a linear relationship
possible. between the factors.
A total of 205 completed
V. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY questionnaires were received
The initial list of 43 project scheduling constraints were giving a total response rate of
identified from the literature review was used in designing the 31.5%. The respond received

Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Retrieval Number: A10540581S19/19©BEIESP 377 & Sciences Publication
 International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
ISSN: 2277-3878, Volume-8 Issue-1S, May 2019

covered the whole Peninsular Malaysia, where majority have Poor morale 0.710 20
5 to 15 years experienced in construction industry (48.7%). Shortage of realistic information 0.723 17
This is beneficial as their experienced are important to about the project strategy

Others
provide valid evaluation of strategic measures in answering Difficult to update schedule 0.678 31
the questionnaire. About 14.7% of the respondents have 16 to Rigorous effort required 0.686 29
25 years of experienced, and 13.7% have more than 25 years Continuous readjustments are 0.725 16
experienced. Only 22.9% of the respondents have less than 5 necessary due to scope changes
years experienced in construction industry. This shows that Shortage of resources 0.709 21
the response received are reliable and represents Malaysia. Unable to utilize resources as 0.708 22

Resources
The results of these descriptive analyses and ranking of the originally planned
constraints are shown in Table III. The central tendency of Need to reassess the requirements 0.688 28
the distribution or the mean is in the ranged from 3.97 to 3.22, of resources for individual
while the standard deviation value is in the range of 0.981 to activities
0.826. All the factors involved in this analysis have a
relatively normal distribution since the skewness range value

Cost Uncertai
Unforeseen bottlenecks 0.700 25
does not exceed the absolute value of -1 to +1. The factors

nty
Absence of schedule contingency 0.700 25
were then ranked using mean and RII formula.
Costly to prepare 0.701 24
Table III: Ranking of constraints Require allocation of extra budget 0.682 30
Rank
Constraints Factor RII of Each
Factor The highest index represents the most significant
Lack of time 0.757 5
constraints whereas the lowest index represents the least
Failure of suppliers or contractors 0.787 2 importance of constraints towards the project performance.
Time

to deliver resources on time According to Kazaz et. al. (2008), the value of RII can be
Inadequate timeframe provided for 0.765 4 group as: 0.20 ≤RII ≤0.36 (not significant); 0.36<RII ≤0.52
tasks (somewhat significant); 0.52<RII ≤0.68 (Significant);
project’s Lack of Knowledge/ Training

Lack of education/ knowledge 0.729 14 0.68<RII ≤0.84 (very significant); 0.84<RII ≤1.0 (extremely
Lack of training 0.728 15 significant). Project constraints that have a very high impact
Incompatibility of planning 0.749 7 on the project success were then shortlisted based on the RII
methods with the project’s nature value of more than 0.68.
Slow decision-making regarding 0.793 1 The correlation for these factors was then tested to identify
activity criticality their relative importance. For this, Pearson Correlation
Poor estimates for planning and 0.780 3 Coefficient was selected as it is a common non-parametric
scheduling method used for correlating factors (Leech et. al., 2011). The
Incorrect perception of 0.734 12 using of this test will produce a mathematical value that
professionals shows the strength of linear relationship between the factors.
Scheduling fast-track construction 0.742 9 Table IV presents Pearson’s correlations coefficient between
nature

project the 33 factors, indicating all factors to be significantly

Project with large contract amount 0.736 11 positively correlated, p˃0.200, p (two-tailed) ˂0.05.
Complex schedule is required 0.751 6
Has no guidance to follow the 0.711 19 Table IV: Pearson Correlation Coefficient
regarded preparation
Management Issues

Lack of support from project 0.730 13

stakeholders
Poor communication between 0.765 4
management levels
Not getting key stakeholder involve 0.705 23
at early stages
Inability to handle employee 0.717 18
workload imbalances
Human’s Behaviour

Reluctance to allow construction 0.698 26

review It is apparent table IV that all correlation pairs have
Lack of genuine commitment of 0.723 17 significance of less than 0.05 (p<0.05) except 5 pairs. These
stakeholders five pairs have a significance ranging from 0.60 to 0.90. In
Authority does not enforce 0.695 27 this case, accept the null
schedules hypothesis of no statistically
Hurdles by authorities 0.737 10 significant relationship
between the constraints as their

Published By:
Retrieval Number: A10540581S19/19©BEIESP Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
378 & Sciences Publication
 Identification of Project Scheduling Constraints Using the Quantitative Approach

significance exceeds 0.05. The most striking result to emerge totally subjective and it is left to the responsible person to
from the data is that most of the correlation pairs are ‘guesstimate’. In this case, low capability and poor
statistically significant with p value less than 0.05. However, judgement of planners lead to poor and inadequate estimation
since there are 650 correlations which is very large, the odds in planning and scheduling projects. Meanwhile, Nega
are increased that one could be statistically significant by (2008) claimed that some parties have underestimated the
chance Leech et. al. (2011). costs for their projects. It is a serious issue that will impact the
project performance in terms of cost. In addition, Elias and
VII. DISCUSSION Ismail (2012) argued that wrong estimation of the activity
Based on the above analysis, attention should be given to start date also has an substantial cost implications. For
the top 8 constraints; “slow decision-making regarding instance, when the duration of a project is miscalculated, the
activity criticality”, “failure of suppliers or contractors to rental of a large crane can cost more. It can be therefore
deliver resources on time”, “poor estimates for planning and assume that poor estimation in project planning and
scheduling”, “inadequate timeframe provided for tasks”, scheduling can bring serious repercussions to the project
“poor communication between management levels”, “lack of performance.
time”, “complex schedule is required” and “incompatibility The 4th RII ranking would go to the “inadequate timeframe
of planning methods with the project’s nature” respectively provided for tasks”. The ranking of this constraint factor is
according to sequence. the same as the finding of AlNasseri (2015) who ranked
The top ranked most impactful constraints as perceived by inadequate timeframe provided for front-end planning as 4th.
the respondents is “slow decision-making regarding activity Mubarak (2010) regarded time frame as when the project is
criticality”. This result is consistent with those of other expected to start and end. An adequate duration of time must
studies and suggest that poor or slow decision making is the be allocated to every job. Mubarak (2010) further explained
most significant constraints among the rest (González et. al., the timeframe of activities taking utility pipe installation
2014; Hameri and Heikkilä, 2002). It can thus be suggested project as an example, trench excavation requires 6 days,
that the stakeholders couldn’t make decision whether each of finishing subbase requires 7 days, laying pipe requires 4 days,
the activities is critical or not in an efficient way. Ackoff backfilling requires 3 days and compaction requires 2 days.
(1970) stated that project planning is regarded as a Theoretically, all five activities of these can be conducted
decision-making process performed followed by action that simultaneously. However, in practice, some amount of
aims to achieve an intended future. According to Mubarak preceding activity must be completed before carrying out
(2010), it is crucial for project managers to determine project another activity. Careful thought must be given by the project
milestones. This is due to the fact that delay of any of these planners and schedulers on the logical timeframe needed for
critical activities causes delay of whole project which in turn each task.
leads to poor project performance. Although focus is given Besides, “poor communication between management
on the critical path of a logic network diagram due to its levels” was also ranked as 4th. This is regarded as the poor
criticality and direct impact on the project finish date, control and reporting system between management levels as
however, failure in making decision on which activities are well as the lack of coordination between constructors and
actually ‘driving’ the schedule may lead the planner to focus consultants, technical and key personnel. This finding is in
on wrong direction. agreement with Iyer and Jha (2006), Mulholand and Christian
Next, the constraint of “failure of suppliers or contractors (1999), Venkatesh et. al. (2012) who found that poor
to deliver resources on time” was ranked as 2nd. The findings communication or coordination is one of the significant
of the current study is consistent with those of Alaghbari et. constraint in project planning and scheduling that leads to
al. (2007) who found that the materials, plant and equipment poor project performance. Meanwhile. Sambasivan and Soon
transportation delay was ranked as third (top three). This is (2007) argued that it is crucial to establish proper
due to the fact that transportation is very important and it communication channels between various parties during
should be done on time in projects. This finding suggested planning stage. This is because a construction project involve
that without materials, plants and equipment delivery on time, many parties (client, consultant, contractors and
construction work will be influenced and most probably sub-contractors). Hence, any problem with communication
delayed. Thus, late delivery of resources causes poor project among the parties may lead to severe misunderstanding and
performance doubtlessly. hence, delays in the project execution. Mubarak (2010)
Nevertheless, “poor estimates for planning and pointed out that in some cases, there could be an ‘authority
scheduling” was ranked as 3rd most impactful constraint. This battle’ between the project manager and main office. This
finding corroborates the ideas of Ali and Kamaruzzaman will in turn impact the project performance. Therefore, poor
(2010) who ranked inaccurate or poor estimation as the top communication is considered as a significant constraint in
most impactful barrier. Project scheduling is the process of project planning and scheduling.
determining how long an activity is likely to take and between The RII ranking is then followed by “lack of time” which is
what dates (Elias and Ismail, 2012). However, Mubarak placed in 5th. This is not surprising since majority of the
(2010) postulated that the estimation of activities’ duration is respondents are involved in project management with heavy
based on previous experiences, with adjustments for current workloads. For a project
job conditions such as weather condition and soil type. manager, time is more of a
Moreover, the estimation of duration for some activities are constraint (Kerzner, 2006). In

Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Retrieval Number: A10540581S19/19©BEIESP 379 & Sciences Publication
 International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
ISSN: 2277-3878, Volume-8 Issue-1S, May 2019

contrast to earlier findings, however, the constraint of “lack this subject especially in Malaysia. Identification of this list
of time” has been placed in 1st place by Abbas et. al. (2016) on its own however was not considered sufficient in
who found that lack of time is the main barrier to contributing to improve IT/IS implementation, thus a survey
pre-construction planning. A possible explanation for this is was used to rank those factors to determine the most
that the respondents in the research of Abbas et. al. (2016), important. This study thus provides insights in a number of
there were only 3 respondents with experience of more than ways. First, a deeper appreciation of the perceived relative
10 years and it was conducted in Pakistan. However,46.4% of importance of human factors in the successful
the respondents of this current research have more than 10 implementation of IT/IS can assist the higher education
years of experience and it was conducted in Malaysia. sector and professional bodies to identify relevant learning
Planning and scheduling is considered as time consuming as outcomes and skills requirements. This may require
it is a detail job. According to Mubarak (2010), there are development of ongoing training needs. Second, given the
some factors that need to be considered while breaking down ranking, this reveals that management style and training/skills
the project into individual activities. They are nature, of are important as IT/IS skills per se. Indeed it appears to be the
work, location, duration of activities, timing, responsibility as ‘softer’ or ‘cultural’ qualities that are critically important
well as phases. Heavy workloads of respondents with limited with user involvement, willingness to process change
time causes them to perceive lack of time as 5th most identified as important attributes for personnel. This
impactful constraint. highlights that training and support is important depending on
Furthermore, the 6th impactful constraint would go to one’s role and responsibility. This means that human
“complex schedule is required’. Sears et. al. (2015) asserted resources need to be sensitive of different training and
that the schedule for a small project doesn’t mean that it is not support needs. Third, the ranking offers insights into how
complicated. He further explained that this is because the organisations may need to provide enough support for their
nature of building construction can be very complex even staffs when investing in IT/IS facilities.
though it is a small project as it includes building shell, This study also has significant implications for managers
structural, mechanical, electrical systems and interior by identifying the priorities among human factors so as to
finishes. Moreover, the work breakdown structure would be help the organisations maximise the probability of success.
even more complicated. It can thus be suggested that the Thus, this will further enhance the manager’s knowledge on
requirement of complex schedule makes planning and the human factors and help organisations to identify possible
scheduling job tougher for authorities as perceived by the difficulties and eventually to enable them to avoid the
respondents. potential risks. The findings can also serve as a guideline for
The RII ranking is then followed by “incompatibility of the organisations and form the basis for their future planning.
planning methods with the project’s nature” which is placed Furthermore, human factors framework or model can be
in 7th. This finding further support the idea of Jurf and devloped which can be used by specific system such as for
Beheiry (2012) and Burke (2013) who found that one of the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), Database Management
barriers faced in planning and scheduling constraint is the System (DBMS), Building Information Modelling (BIM) and
problem of incompatibility of planning methods with others.
project’s nature. As discussed earlier, there are different
types of project nature. Therefore, a suitable method of ACKNOWLEDGMENT
planning to be adapted according to nature of project is an This research is supported by the University of Malaya
issue to be concerned. As claimed by Baldwin and Bordoli Bantuan Khas Penyelidikan (BKP), grant number
(2014), a planning method statement is required for complex BK028-2016.
projects. This statement is used to records the assumptions
that have been made in the process of risk management, REFERENCES
planning and scheduling. If a complex project is not planned
[1] Abbas, A., Din, Z. U., & Farooqui, R. (2016). Achieving Greater
and scheduled ‘s accordingly, the planning method is said to
Project Success & Profitability through Pre-construction Planning: A
be incompatible with the project’s nature. Case-based Study. Procedia Engineering, 145, 804-811.
[2] Abeyasinghe, M. C. L., Greenwood, D. J., & Johansen, D. E. (2001).
VIII. CONCLUSION An efficient method for scheduling construction projects with
resource constraints. International Journal of Project Management,
The relative importance of human factors in determining 19(1), 29-45.
the success or otherwise of IT/IS implementation in business [3] Ahuja, H. N., Dozzi, S., & Abourizk, S. (1994). Project management:
techniques in planning and controlling construction projects: John
has received much attention from researchers and Wiley & Sons.
practitioners over the years. An extensive literature review [4] Ahuja, V., & Thiruvengadam, V. (2004). Project scheduling and
supported by interview with selected representatives from monitoring: current research status. Construction Innovation, 4(1),
19-31.
Malaysia has identified 23 human factors. Findings from this [5] Al Jurf, N., & Beheiry, S. (2012). Factors affecting cost and schedule
study shows the most important human factors are perceived in Qatar’s residential compounds projects. International Journal of
to be motivation, training/skills, top management support, Engineering Management and Economics 2, 3(1-2), 117-134.
willingness to process change, IT staff roles and [6] Al Nasseri, H., & Aulin, R. (2016). Enablers and Barriers to Project
Planning and Scheduling Based
responsibilities, user involvement and management style. on Construction Projects in
This catalogue of human factors is a helpful addition to the Oman. Journal of Construction
wider literature but also offers a significant contribution to in Developing Countries, 21(2),
1.

Published By:
Retrieval Number: A10540581S19/19©BEIESP Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
380 & Sciences Publication
 Identification of Project Scheduling Constraints Using the Quantitative Approach

[7] Ali, A., & Kamaruzzaman, S. (2010). Cost performance for building Budget: The Ultimate Hands-On Guide to Bringing Projects in On
construction projects in Klang valley. Journal of Building Time and On Budget: McGraw Hill Professional.
Performance, 1(1). [34] Memon, A. H. (2014). Contractor perspective on time overrun factors
[8] Alnuaimi, A. S., Taha, R. A., Al Mohsin, M., & Al-Harthi, A. S. in Malaysian construction projects. International Journal of Science,
(2009). Causes, effects, benefits, and remedies of change orders on Environment and Technology, 3(3), 1184-1192.
public construction projects in Oman. Journal of Construction [35] Memon, A. H., Rahman, I. A., & Azis, A. A. A. (2012). Time and cost
Engineering and Management, 136(5), 615-622. performance in construction projects in southern and central regions
[9] Baldwin, A., & Bordoli, D. (2014). Handbook for construction of Peninsular Malaysia. International Journal of advances in applied
planning and scheduling: John Wiley & Sons. sciences, 1(1), 45-52.
[10] Bertelsen, S., Henrich, G., Koskela, L., & Rooke, J. (2007). [36] Memon, A. H., & Zin, R. M. (2011). Resource-Driven Scheduling
Construction physics. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 15th Implementation in Malaysian Construction Industry. International
Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction. Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering and Technology,
[11] Burke, R. (2013). Project management: planning and control 1(2), 77-90.
techniques. New Jersey, USA. [37] Mokhtari, H., Kazemzadeh, R. B., & Salmasnia, A. (2011). Time-cost
[12] Chan, A. P., & Chan, A. P. (2004). Key performance indicators for tradeoff analysis in project management: An ant system approach.
measuring construction success. Benchmarking: an international IEEE Transactions on engineering management, 58(1), 36-43.
journal, 11(2), 203-221. [38] Mubarak, S. A. (2015). Construction project scheduling and control:
[13] Demeulemeester, E., & Herroelen, W. (2002). Project scheduling-A John Wiley & Sons.
research handbook. Vol. 49 of International Series in Operations [39] Mulholland, B., & Christian, J. (1999). Risk assessment in
Research & Management Science: Kluwer Academic Publishers, construction schedules. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Boston. Management, 125(1), 8-15.
[14] Elmaghraby, S., Herroelen, W., & Leus, R. (2003). Note on the paper [40] Müller, R., & Turner, R. (2010). Leadership competency profiles of
‘Resource-constrained project management using enhanced theory of successful project managers. International Journal of Project
constraint’by Wei et al. International Journal of Project Management, Management, 28(5), 437-448.
21(4), 301-305. [41] Nepal, M. P., Park, M., & Son, B. (2006). Effects of schedule pressure
[15] Emam, H., Farrell, P., & Abdelaal, M. (2014). Causes of Delay in on construction performance. Journal of Construction Engineering
GCC Construction Projects: A Critical Review. Paper presented at the and Management, 132(2), 182-188.
The 1st International Conference of CIB Middle East & North Africa [42] Noronha, S., & Sarma, V. (1991). Knowledge-based approaches for
Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE. scheduling problems: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and
[16] Endut, I. R., Akintoye, A., & Kelly, J. (2009). Cost and time overruns Data Engineering, 3(2), 160-171.
of projects in Malaysia. retrieved on August, 21, 243-252. [43] PMI. (2008). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge:
[17] Faridi, A. S., & El‐Sayegh, S. M. (2006). Significant factors causing PMBOK® Guide. . Newtown Square: Pennsylvania, PA: Project
delay in the UAE construction industry. Construction Management Management Institute.
and Economics, 24(11), 1167-1176. [44] PMI. (2011). Practice standard for scheduling: PMBOK® Guide.
[18] Fowler, N., Cross, S. E., & Owens, C. (1995). The ARPA-Rome Newtown Square: Pennsylvania, PA.: Project Management Institute.
knowledge-based planning and scheduling initiative. IEEE Expert, [45] Sears, S. K., Sears, G. A., Clough, R. H., Rounds, J. L., & Segner, R.
10(1), 4-9. O. (2015). Construction project management: John Wiley & Sons.
[19] Galloway, P. D. (2005). CPM scheduling and how the industry views [46] Venkatesh, M. P., Malathi, B., & Umarani, C. (2012). Factors
its use. AACE International Transactions, CD71. Affecting Implementation of Resource Scheduling in Indian
[20] Galloway, P. D. (2006). Survey of the construction industry relative to Construction Projects. Paper presented at the Applied Mechanics and
the use of CPM scheduling for construction projects. Journal of Materials.
Construction Engineering and Management, 132(7), 697-711. [47] Voth, G. W. (2009). Classification of schedule management barriers
[21] Goldratt, E. M., & Cox, J. (1984). The goal: excellence in through concept mapping. Retrieved from
manufacturing: North River Press. [48] Weber, S. C. (2005). Scheduling construction projects: Principles and
[22] González, P., González, V., Molenaar, K., & Orozco, F. (2013). practices: Prentice Hall.
Analysis of causes of delay and time performance in construction [49] White, D., & Fortune, J. (2002). Current practice in project
projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, management—An empirical study. International Journal of Project
140(1), 04013027. Management, 20(1), 1-11.
[23] Hajdu, M. (2013). Network scheduling techniques for construction [50] Yang, J.-B. (2007). How the critical chain scheduling method is
project management (Vol. 16): Springer Science & Business Media. working for construction. Cost Engineering, 49(4), 25-32.
[24] Hameed, A. (2005). Resource-driven scheduling: Barriers to
implementation. (PhD), University Teknologi Malaysia, Malaysia
[25] Hameri, A.-P., & Heikkilä, J. (2002). Improving efficiency:
time-critical interfacing of project tasks. International Journal of
Project Management, 20(2), 143-153.
[26] Hamzah, N., Khoiry, M., Arshad, I., Tawil, N. M., & Ani, A. C.
(2011). Cause of construction delay-Theoretical framework. Procedia
Engineering, 20, 490-495.
[27] Idoro, G. (2012). Comparing levels of use of project plans and
performance of traditional contract and design-build construction
projects in Nigeria. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology,
10(1), 7-33.
[28] Iyer, K., & Jha, K. (2006). Critical factors affecting schedule
performance: Evidence from Indian construction projects. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 132(8), 871-881.
[29] Kazaz, A., Manisali, E., & Ulubeyli, S. (2008). Effect of basic
motivational factors on construction workforce productivity in
Turkey. Journal of civil engineering and management, 14(2), 95-106.
[30] Kerzner, H. (2013). Project management: a systems approach to
planning, scheduling, and controlling: John Wiley & Sons.
[31] Kim, S.-Y., Van Tuan, N., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2009). Quantifying
schedule risk in construction projects using Bayesian belief networks.
International Journal of Project Management, 27(1), 39-50.
[32] Leech, N., Barret, K., & Morgan, G. (2011). A selecting and
interpreting inferential statistic. IBM SPSS for intermediate statistics.
4ª ed. Routledge: NewYork, 81-105.
[33] Lewis, J. (2010). Project Planning, Scheduling, and Control: The
Ultimate Hands-On Guide to Bringing Projects in On Time and On

Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Retrieval Number: A10540581S19/19©BEIESP 381 & Sciences Publication