Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management

ISSN: 2255-9671 (online)

2018, 6, 116–130
doi: 10.2478/bjreecm-2018-0009
https://content.sciendo.com

IDENTIFICATION OF DELAY CAUSING ACTOR IN THE

INDIAN REAL ESTATE PROJECT: AN AHP-BASED
APPROACH
Shumank DEEP1, Mohd ASIM 2, Neeti KESARWANI3, Shweta KANDPAL4
1
School of Architecture and Built Environment, University of Newcastle, Callaghan 2308,
NSW, Australia
2
Himalayan Institute of Technology and Management, Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow
227007, UP, India
3
Thomas International, New Delhi 110001, India
4
Aqua Explorers, New Delhi 110001, India
Corresponding author’s email: [email protected]

Abstract. Indian construction is a vital domain with an enormous employment

potential and its contribution to the economy. Real estate is an essential domain
of construction that tackles the housing demands. In the present scenario, this
sector is experiencing a slowdown often failing projects. Thus, the aim is to
identify the project participant and attributes that lead to delays in the schedule
of real estate projects. In this process, we apply the hierarchical analytical
process to identify the actor and the causes that result in an overrun. Our findings
suggest that to a significant extent delays occur due to contractors under the
influence of distinct factors discussed in the study.

Keywords: Real estate, construction projects, project management, contractor

performance, delays, cost overruns.

INTRODUCTION

The construction sector has been the second largest employer in India; more
than 35 million people are employed in the sector, second only to agriculture.
Evidently from government records, the construction domain is valued over $126
billion and accounts for more than 60 percent of total investment in infrastructure.
The primary cause of growth catalyst in this sector is technological advancement
(Deep et al., 2016; Deep et al., 2017a; Deep et al., 2017b; Deep et al., 2017c; Deep
et al., 2017e; Wahaj et al., 2017). Among such factors, innovative technologies and
international players lead to enhanced employment across an infinite array of
varying skills. Above all these advantages, government initiatives such as “Smart
Cities” project and “Housing for All by 2012” are a major game changer for the
construction sector in India. In this regard, amplified thrust to the affordable
housing with fast approvals and policy changes resulted in a construction boom.
Similarly, policy, i.e., “Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation
(AMRUT)” has catalyzed growth in infrastructure and related sectors. According to

©2018 Shumank Deep et al.

This is an open access article licensed under the Creative Commons
116
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), in the
manner agreed with Sciendo.
 Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management

_________________________________________________________________________________ 2018 / 6

information obtained from Right to Information Act, 2005, it has been estimated
that the construction sector will grow up to 8 percent every year for the next decade
(Deep et al., 2017e).
Regardless of these catalytic growth factors, the construction industry is
affected by an acute availability of skilled workers, raw material, and political
disturbances and above all twin balance sheet problem of Banks and Builders’,
which are resulting in NPA from the side of industries (Deep et al., 2016). The
slowdown in Indian construction projects possesses inherent risk and increasing
complexities, one of which is complication of time overshoot, i.e., delays in project
handover, which leads to psychological and arbitrary misconceptions, increased
costs of labour that result in increased cost of project, productivity loss, revenue
loss, and project failures (Deep et al., 2017a; Deep et al., 2017c; Deep et al., 2017e;
Wahaj et al., 2017). Hence, it is imperative to eradicate or lessen the delays in the
handover. Therefore, in the present paper, we propose using the Analytic Hierarchy
Process to choose a critical delay factor and delay accountability for the real estate
sector in India.

1. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Construction projects are an essential element of countries’ productive capacity

and efficiency (Dawson, 2008; Osipova & Eriksson, 2011; Aitken & Paton, 2017;
Ghadge et al., 2017). In the present scenario, globally the construction domain is
experiencing growth regarding capital cost and complexity (Dawson, 2008).
Dawson (2008) further stated that “importantly, there is an unprecedented level of
proposed development and attainment of success in each project depends upon a
number of issues which include global economic events”; the statement was further
supported by Rahmani et al. (2017), Lloyd-walker et al. (2014), Burger and
Hawkesworth (2011).
The construction industry is sceptical to innovation and is affected by negative
attitudes and discontent (Wood, 2010; Caridi et al., 2014; Egan, 2014; Dang & Le-
Hoai, 2016; Daniel et al., 2017; Nguyen & Watanabe, 2017) due to its hierarchical
nature (Akintoye & Main, 2007; Babaeian Jelodar et al., 2016) that affects
schedule/cost performance improvement in construction (Lam et al., 2004; Kale &
Karaman, 2012; Love et al., 2017a). The primary constraint in the way of
decentralization of markets and process in the construction industry is that it is a
project-driven, sophisticated and conservative sector (Segerstedt & Olofsson, 2010;
Fulford & Standing, 2014; Donato et al., 2015; Lessing & Brege, 2015). Since the
projects are carried here at the temporary site by a temporary organisation
comprising different parties, i.e., client, consultant, and contractor, and this also
terminates after project closure, adds to the complexity and uncertainties associated
with it.
Available literature has established that in the past few decades the construction
industry in India is marred by unsatisfactory performance due to time and cost
overrun. Timely completion, minimisation of cost overrun, lack of on-site hazards
and satisfactory quality standards are a measure of a successful project
(Palaneeswaran & Kumaraswamy, 2000; Palaneeswaran & Kumaraswamy, 2001;

117
 Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management

_________________________________________________________________________________ 2018 / 6

Palaneeswaran et al., 2001; Palaneeswaran & Kumaraswamy, 2008). Risk

allocation amongst the contracting parties is an issue that has affected the outcomes
of procurement concerning built environment. To avoid any constraints affecting
projects, the liability shall be equally distributed among the contracting parties
(Deep et al., 2017b; Khan et al., 2017; Singh et al., 2017).
According to Kornelius and Wamelink (1998), specifications of the product are
determined by its consumer, and the same influence poses to be a significant impact
on the activities being conducted at construction sites. Such factors lead to
occurrence of short-term relationships in the construction industry between a client
and a contractor (Dubois & Gadde, 2002; Fearne & Fowler, 2006; Qu et al., 2011;
Ardeshir et al., 2014; Janipha et al., 2015; Cerchione & Esposito, 2016; Ali Kazmi,
2017; Ju et al., 2017) eventually making the price quoted by the contractor the
critical factor for evaluation of its bid. It is essential to mention that losses incur to
the construction industry due to cost overrun, disputes, claim settlement and the
primary reason for occurrence of disputes and disruptions, and such situations are
commonly observed due to a lack of accurate information visibility (Mahamid,
2017) and this contributes to the trend of lower profit margins and reduced
productivity in this sector. Delays in construction projects occour as a result of ,
contamination at the site, the bankruptcy of supplier during execution, logistic
failure, and community resistance. The absence of transparency and lack of
information sharing in this sector have also affected productivity.

1.1. Decision Scenario

The real estate construction company, which was subject of study in this work,
is a leading maker of specialized housing and township development. Its success
will depend on completing the project according to its as-built schedule and getting
and delivering new ones. Due to inherent risks and increased complexities of
construction projects, delays and cost overruns can frequently be observed (Orangi
et al., 2011; Hampton et al., 2012; Edwards et al., 2017; Shen et al., 2017). Delays
can lead to many stereotypes, i.e., disputes between a client and contractors leading
to arbitration cost overrun, productivity loss, revenue loss and the termination of
work charge. To compensate the damage due to delay, both causes and actors
responsible for them must be identified (Yeo & Ning, 2002; Ardeshir et al., 2014;
Sigmund & Radujković, 2014; Deep et al., 2016; Barman & Charoenngam, 2017;
Deep et al., 2017b; Dixit et al., 2017; Love et al., 2017b; Walker et al., 2017). The
analysis involves delay time calculation, identification of causes and the actor
responsible for the delay.
Client induced delays, i.e., delayed availability drawings and specifications,
frequent changes and inadequate site information result in counterclaims from both
the main contractors and sub-contractors and lead to arbitration and substantial
financial repercussions (Mitkus & Mitkus, 2014; Ju et al., 2017; Mahamid, 2017).
Contractor induced delays can be attributed to poor project management, lack of
planning and poor financial management (Love et al., 2011; Barman &
Charoenngam, 2017; Komurlu & Arditi, 2017). It is observed that topmost factors
that cause cost overrun are the lack of involving contractor during design, meager

118
 Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management

_________________________________________________________________________________ 2018 / 6

site management and supervision, theft on site, repeated design change, incomplete
design, change in material specification, act of God, and mistake in design and
financial management on site and constructor bankruptcy. This was confirmed in
the findings by Srivastava and Banerjee (2015); Deep et al. (2016); Deep et al.
(2017a); Deep et al. (2017b); Deep et al. (2017c, 2017d); Khan et al. (2017);
Mathivathanan et al. (2017); Mishra et al. (2017); Sanderson et al. (2017); Singh
et al. (2017); Wahaj et al. (2017).
The present study aims at identification of the actor causing maximum delays
and the attributes responsible for the occurrence of delays. To achieve this aim, the
following research question has to be answered:
 Which actor is responsible for the occurrence of delays?
 What are the attributes responsible for the occurrence of delays?
After exhaustive exploration of literature, four criteria have been identified to
determine the party responsible for occurred delays, i.e., financial issues,
partnering, error identification and rectification and site conditions. The validity of
these attributes will be tested in further sections using the Analytical Hierarchical
Process. The four criteria will be further discussed in detail.

1.1.1 Financial Issues

Successful execution of projects can be ensured by preventing cost overruns
and ensuring the projects to finish within the time (Le-Hoai et al., 2008; Shehu et
al., 2014). The real estate sector in India and other countries in the south Asian
region is characterised by frequent overruns leading to the abandonment of projects
(Deep et al., 2017b). The factors come under this category: requests for favourable
quotes from the client side (Deep et al., 2018), delay in payments (Orangi et al.,
2011; Hampton et al., 2012), insufficient financial planning, commercial pressure
and client’s bankruptcy.

1.1.2 Partnering
Partnering refers to the relationship between the client and the contractor in a
construction project (Deep et al., 2017c). Highly transactional relationships are
predominant in the construction sector. It is often governed by the number of
potential partners available in the market, project complexities, subletting clauses
and reliability of the firm considered as a partner. Furthermore, incompetent project
team, unfavorable contract clauses also tend to deteriorate partnering
characteristics.

1.1.3 Error Identification and Rectification

In developing countries, observation of design error is quite frequent, and the
main reason for their occurrence is frequent design changes by the client. Frequent
design changes tend to affect project performance; also they lead to negligence and
errors (Cerchione & Esposito, 2016; Dang & Le-Hoai, 2016; Daniel et al., 2017).

119
 Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management

_________________________________________________________________________________ 2018 / 6

Lack of error identification and rectification mechanism in construction leads to

time overrun and results in disputes among project participants.

1.1.4 Site Conditions

Site conditions are vital to consider as they are the detriment of smooth
execution of projects. Few factors that govern site conditions are the location of the
construction site, logistical planning, inventory planning, management and
supervision capabilities, onsite facility planning and equipment availability.
Inadequate planning to deal with site conditions for a sub-contractor leads to a high
risk situation that increases site vulnerability (Kale & Karaman, 2012; Fulford &
Standing, 2014; Deep et al., 2016; Barman & Charoenngam, 2017; Deep et al.,
2017e; Komurlu & Arditi, 2017). Furthermore, major administrative clearances are
also essential to ensure smooth construction activity on site as it could lead to legal
issues.

2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Within the framework of the research, mixed research methods have been used,
i.e., review of recent literature, a questionnaire-based survey, and a series of
structured interviews. A survey is a non-experimental, descriptive research strategy
broadly used to survey mentalities and qualities about the scope of subjects (Arantes
et al., 2015). A web-based survey was conducted in November and December 2016,
and the data were compiled in a web-based database. The structured interviews
were conducted amongst 43 experts to document their views and to validate the
results of the questionnaire-based survey.
The study is further based on the application of the Analytical Hierarchical
Process (AHP) (Saaty, 2008) to identify critical delay factors. The study is a
continuation of the work of Deep et al. (2017c), and apart from the identification of
critical factors also focuses on the calculation of delay accountability. Application
of AHP was useful to identify the most common criteria in a rational and transparent
way. Choosing the AHP method for identification of delay causing attributes allows
overcoming the limitations of traditional methods. As discussed before, our case
study was managed in Lucknow region of Uttar Pradesh (India) due to high levels
of investment incurred in real estate segment. Cost, time, and quality were the three
main items on which managers mostly focus in order to control the projects, but
project delay management by itself should be noticed as a factor that affects other
items. Thus, to finalize the project and meet predefined objectives in terms of cost,
time and quality, management regarding handover should be addressed parallel
with other objectives.

2.1. Criteria for Pairwise Comparison

The decision hierarchy (conceptual framework) for critical delay factors
appears in Fig. 1, and the pairwise comparison criteria received for the research are
shown in Table 1.

120
 Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management

_________________________________________________________________________________ 2018 / 6

Table 1. Scale for Pairwise Comparison (Source: Saaty 2008, p. 88)

Intensity of
Definition Explanation
importance
1 Equal importance Two criteria contribute equally to the objective
Experience and judgment slightly favour one over
3 Moderate importance
another
5 Strong importance Experience and judgment strongly favour each other
One criterion is strongly favoured, and its dominance
7 Very strong importance
is demonstrated in practice
Importance of one over another is recognised in
9 Absolute importance
practice indisputably
Used to represent compromises between the preceding
2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate values
priorities1

Critical Delay Factors

Error Identification
Financial Issues Partnering Site Conditions
and Rectification

Contractor
Owner Blameworthy Third Party
Blameworthy

Fig. 1. Decision hierarchy (developed by the authors).

The priorities will then be consolidated through the hierarchy to give a general
need for each actor. Application of AHP will determine priorities for the actors
regarding each decision criterion, and priorities for each criterion are based on
significance for achieving the objective. The gathering of priorities with the unique
need will be the most responsible option, and the proportion of the gathered'
priorities will show their relative qualities in achieving the objective.

1
If criterion I has one of the previous numbers assigned to it during comparison with j, then j has a reciprocal value when
compared with i.

121
 Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management

_________________________________________________________________________________ 2018 / 6

2.2. Criteria for Measurement

The priorities derived from progression of measurements in light of pairwise
comparisons will include all nodes of decision hierarchy. The nodes at each level
will be compared in a 2×2 matrix based on dependence on the preceding node. The
results of these comparisons will be handled numerically to infer the priorities for
each node. The comparisons are made by comparing the choices with deference in
their strengths to address each criterion. In this step, each criterion will be compared
based on its significance for achieving the objective.
Since there are three alternatives (owner, contractor and third party) and
comparison of each actor is necessary, three pairwise comparisons must be
performed for each criterion: Owner versus Contractor, Owner versus Third Party
and Contractor versus Third Party. For each comparison, the weaker actor will be
identified by the criteria focused. At that point, a relative weight is allocated to the
next party.

3. DATA ANALYSIS
The current study follows the data analysis methodology applied by Arantes
et al. (2014); Arantes et al. (2015); Ferreira et al. (2015). In this study, a 2-step
analytical hierarchical process has been used. Figure 2 shows the AHP hierarchy
after the analysis. The objective of this process is to identify the actor who should
be blameworthy for the occurrence of delay. After analysing the first leg of
hierarchy, it has been observed that “contractor blameworthy” is the most preferred
alternative with a priority of 0.493. It is preferred about a third over “owner
blameworthy,” whose priority is 0.358, and is about three times more than the “third
party,” whose priority is only 0.149. The criterion “Financial Issues” is the most
important one concerning reaching the goal, followed by “Partnering,” “Error
Identification and Rectification,” and “Site Conditions” whose relative weights are
0.547, 0.270, 0.127, and 0.056, respectively. We will further discuss the detailed
calculation procedure. The results of the analysis are shown in Tables 2–6.

3.1. Calculation of Priorities

In this process, the next step will be to compare each actor by financial issues.
For each comparison, a weaker actor will be identified and assigned a relative
weight of 1. Then, relative weight is assigned to the fiscal matters of the other actor
using AHP fundamental scale, and a similar process can also be repeated for other
criteria.

122
 Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management

_________________________________________________________________________________ 2018 / 6

Critical Delay Factors

=1.0

Error Identification
Financial Issues Partnering Site Conditions
and Rectification
= 0.547 = 0.270 =0.056
=0.127

Contractor Responsible Owner Responsible Third Party

=0.493 =0.358 =0.149

Fig. 2. Relative weights for a different criterion (developed by the authors).

Table 2. Financial Issues

Financial issues Owner Contractor Third party

Owner 1.000 0.250(1/4) 4.000

Contractor 4.000 1.000 9.000

Third party 0.250(1/4) 0.111(1/9) 1.000

Sum of priorities 1.000

Inconsistency 0.035

Table 3. Partnering

Partnering Owner Contractor Third party

Owner 1.000 3.000 0.200(1/5)

Contractor 0.333(1/3) 1.000 0.142(1/7)

Third party 5.000 7.000 1.000

Sum of priorities 1.000

Inconsistency 0.062

123
 Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management

_________________________________________________________________________________ 2018 / 6

Table 4. Error Identification and Rectification

Error identification and

Owner Contractor Third party Priority
rectification

Owner 1.000 5.000 9.000 0.743

Contractor 0.200(1/5) 1.000 4.000 0.194

Third party 0.111(1/9) 0.250(1/4) 1.000 0.063

Sum of priorities 1.000

Inconsistency 0.069

Table 5. Site Conditions

Site Conditions Owner Contractor Third party Priority

Owner 1.000 0.333(1/3) 5.000 0.265

Contractor 3.000 1.000 9.000 0.672

Third party 0.200(1/5) 0.111(1/9) 1.000 0.063

Sum of priorities 1.000

Inconsistency 0.028

By solving this matrix, priorities can be derived for the parties concerning fiscal
matters. The priorities are measurements of their relative strengths, derived from
the judgments of the decision makers as entered into the matrix. Mathematically,
priorities can be calculated by obtaining the eigenvector for the matrix. These
priorities thus calculated are shown in Tables 2–5, along with an inconsistency
factor.

3.2. Comparison of Criteria

After evaluating each actor by its strength to meet each criterion, each criterion
will be evaluated by its significance to achieve objectives. Therefore, in this
process, a series of pairwise comparisons will be performed. At this stage of work,
structured interviews were used to assess each criterion. The comparisons will
require a larger matrix, but they are analysed using the same process as smaller ones
(see Table 6).

124
 Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management

_________________________________________________________________________________ 2018 / 6

Table 6. Results of Criteria Comparisons

Error
Fiscal Site
Criteria Partnering identification Priority
matter conditions
rectification

Financial issues 1.000 4.000 3.000 7.000 0.547

Partnering 0.250(1/4) 1.000 0.333(1/3) 3.000 0.127

Error
identification 0.333(1/3) 3.000 1.000 5.000 0.270
and rectification

Site conditions 0.142(1/7) 0.333(1/3) 0.200(1/5) 1.000 0.056

Sum of priorities 1.000

Inconsistency 0.044

As it can be observed in Table 6, financial issues are the highest ranked

criterion, about twice as important for reaching the goal as the second-highest
ranked criterion – error identification and rectification. Similarly, error
identification and rectification is about twice as important as partnering, which in
turn is more than twice as important as site conditions.
Decision making is a vital activity for construction projects, especially at early
stages and based on the analysis of previous experiences. In this regard, AHP uses
criteria and sub-criteria organised in a mathematically modelled hierarchical
structure, which makes it possible to decide which alternative is best for achieving
the intention. On this basis, a decision-support system can be developed to reduce
the risks caused by the uncertainty of the decision and eliminate delays in a highly
ambiguous project environment.

CONCLUSION

Calculation results of questionnaire-based survey and priority have

demonstrated that the contractor is responsible for delays in construction projects.
From survey results, it has been observed that factors, i.e., financial issues,
partnering, error identification and rectification, and site conditions are the major
attributes that affect contractor’s performance. A series of structured interviews
conducted with experts and professionals have validated the findings. If these
attributes are controlled, then cost and time overruns in a construction project can
be checked to a greater extent. The knowledge gained about time overrun causes,
and the way they are affecting the construction industry might prove to be beneficial
to the stockholders involved in the construction domain, thus resulting in the
improved performance of the real estate sector.

125
 Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management

_________________________________________________________________________________ 2018 / 6

REFERENCES
Aitken, A., & Paton, R. A. (2017). The “T-Shaped Buyer”: A transactional perspective on supply
chain relationships. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 23(4), 280–289.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2017.03.001
Akintoye, A., & Main, J. (2007). Collaborative relationships in construction: the UK contractors’
perception. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 14(6), 597–617.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09699980710829049
Ali Kazmi, S. (2017). Impact of Natural, Man-made Risks and Stakeholders Relationship on
effectiveness of Supply Chain Management in Developing Countries. KTH Royal Institute of
Technology. Retrieved from http://www.diva-
portal.se/smash/get/diva2:1084790/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Arantes, A., Ferreira, L. M. D. F., & Costa, A. A. (2015). Is the construction industry aware of
supply chain management? The Portuguese contractors’ perspective. Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, 20(4), 404–414. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-06-2014-0207
Arantes, A., Ferreira, L. M. D. F., & Kharlamov, A. A. (2014). Application of a Purchasing Portfolio
Model in a Construction Company in Two Distinct Markets. Journal of Management in
Engineering, 30(5), 04014020. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000290
Ardeshir, A., Amiri, M., Ghasemi, Y., & Errington, M. (2014). Risk assessment of construction
projects for water conveyance tunnels using fuzzy fault tree analysis. International Journal of
Civil Engineering, 12(4), 396-412. Retrieved from http://ijce.iust.ac.ir/article-1-878-en.pdf
Babaeian Jelodar, M., Yiu, T. W., & Wilkinson, S. (2017). Assessing Contractual Relationship
Quality: Study of Judgment Trends among Construction Industry Participants. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 33(1), 04016028. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-
5479.0000461
Barman, A., & Charoenngam, C. (2017). Decisional Uncertainties in Construction Projects as a
Cause of Disputes and Their Formal Legal Interpretation by the Courts: Review of Legal Cases
in the United Kingdom. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and
Construction, 9(3), 04517011. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000222
Burger, P., & Hawkesworth, I. (2011). How to Attain Value for Money. Comparing PPP and
traditional infrastructure public procurement. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 11(1), 91–146.
https://doi.org/10.1787/budget-11-5kg9zc0pvq6j
Caridi, M., Moretto, A., Perego, A., & Tumino, A. (2014). The benefits of supply chain visibility:
A value assessment model. International Journal of Production Economics, 151, 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.12.025
Cerchione, R., & Esposito, E. (2016). A systematic review of supply chain knowledge management
research: State of the art and research opportunities. International Journal of Production
Economics, 182, 276–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.09.006
Dang, C. N., & Le-Hoai, L. (2016). Critical success factors for implementation process of design-
build projects in Vietnam. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 14(1), 17–32.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-04-2013-0029
Daniel, E. I., Pasquire, C., Dickens, G., & Ballard, H. G. (2017). The relationship between the last
planner® system and collaborative planning practice in UK construction. Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, 24(3), 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-
07-2015-0109
Dawson, B. (2008). The new world of value transfer ppps. Infrastructure: Policy, Finance and
Investment, 12–13.
Deep, S., Asim, M., & Ahmad, S. A. (2017a). Earned Value based Liability Calculation Algorithm
for Schedule Delays in Construction Projects. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 10(15),
1–10. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2017/v10i15/110324
Deep, S., Asim, M., & Khan, M. K. (2017b). Review of Various Delay Causing Factors and Their
Resolution by Application of Lean Principles in India. Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics
and Construction Management, 5(1), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1515/bjreecm-2017-0008
Deep, S., Gajendran, T., Jefferies, M., & Davis, P. (2018, April). An analytical literature review of
risks in collaborative procurement. Paper presented at the The Royal Institution of Chartered

126
 Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management

_________________________________________________________________________________ 2018 / 6

Surveyors – Annual Construction, Building and Real Estate Research Conference, London, UK.
Retrieved from http://www.rics.org/Documents/COBRA%202018/128-Deep-
AN_ANALYTICAL_LITERATURE_REVIEW_OF_RISKS_IN_COLLABORATIVE_PROC
UREMENT-220418-kp.pdf
Deep, S., Jefferies, M., & Gajendran, T. (2017). Resolving constraints in collaborative procurement
through the lens of a portfolio purchasing model: A traditional literature review. Paper presented
at the International Symposium on Frontiers of Infrastructure Finance, Indian Institute of
Technology, Kharagpur, India.
Deep, S., Khan, M. B., Ahmad, S., & Saeed, A. (2017e). A study of various factors affecting
contractor's performance in lowest bid award construction projects. International Journal of
Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(2), 28–33. Retrieved from
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=2
Deep, S., Singh, D., & Ahmad, S. A. (2017). A Review of Contract Awards to Lowest Bidder in
Indian Construction Projects via Case Based Approach. Open Journal of Business and
Management, 05(01), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2017.51015
Dixit, V., Chaudhuri, A., & Srivastava, R. K. (2017). Procurement scheduling in engineer procure
construct projects: a comparison of three fuzzy modelling approaches. International Journal of
Construction Management, 18(3), 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2017.1314750
Donato, M., Ahsan, K., & Shee, H. (2015). Resource dependency and collaboration in construction
supply chain: literature review and development of a conceptual framework. International
Journal of Procurement Management, 8(3), 344–364.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPM.2015.069157
Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). The construction industry as a loosely coupled system:
implications for productivity and innovation. Construction Management and Economics, 20(7),
621–631. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190210163543
Edwards, D. J., Owusu-Manu, D.-G., Baiden, B., Badu, E., & Love, P. E. (2017). Financial distress
and highway infrastructure delays. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 15(1), 118–
132. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-02-2016-0006
Egan, J. (2014). Rethinking construction, construction task force report for department of the
environment, transport and the regions. ed: HMSO, London.
Fearne, A., & Fowler, N. (2006). Efficiency versus effectiveness in construction supply chains: the
dangers of “lean” thinking in isolation. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
11(4), 283–287. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540610671725
Ferreira, L. M. D. F., Arantes, A., & Kharlamov, A. A. (2015). Development of a purchasing
portfolio model for the construction industry: an empirical study. Production Planning &
Control, 26(5), 377-392. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2014.906679
Fulford, R., & Standing, C. (2014). Construction industry productivity and the potential for
collaborative practice. International Journal of Project Management, 32(2), 315–326.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.05.007
Ghadge, A., Dani, S., Ojha, R., & Caldwell, N. (2017). Using risk sharing contracts for supply chain
risk mitigation: A buyer-supplier power and dependence perspective. Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 103, 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2016.11.034
Hampton, G., Baldwin, A. N., & Holt, G. (2012). Project delays and cost: stakeholder perceptions
of traditional v. PPP procurement. Journal of Financial Management of Property and
Construction, 17(1), 73–91. https://doi.org/10.1108/13664381211211055
Janipha, N. A. I., Ahmad, N., & Ismail, F. (2015). Clients’ Involvement in Purchasing Process for
Quality Construction Environment. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 168, 30–40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.207
Ju, Q., Ding, L., & Skibniewski, M. J. (2017). Optimization strategies to eliminate interface conflicts
in complex supply chains of construction projects. Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management, 23(6), 712–726. https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2016.1232305
Kale, S., & Karaman, E. A. (2012). A diagnostic model for assessing the knowledge management
practices of construction firms. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 16(4), 526–537.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-012-1468-x

127
 Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management

_________________________________________________________________________________ 2018 / 6

Khan, M. A., Deep, S., Asim, M., & Khan, Z. R. (2017). Quantization of risks involved in supply of
ready mix concrete in construction industry in indian scenario. International Journal of Civil
Engineering and Technology, 8(3), 175-184.
Komurlu, R., & Arditi, D. (2017). The role of general conditions relative to claims and disputes in
building construction contracts. New Arch-International Journal of Contemporary Architecture,
4(2), 27-36.
Kornelius, L., & Wamelink, J. (1998). The virtual corporation: Learning from construction. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, 3(4), 193-202.
Kornelius, L., & Wamelink, J. W. F. (1998). The virtual corporation: learning from construction.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 3(4), 193–202.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13598549810244278
Lam, E. W. M., Chan, A. P. C., & Chan, D. W. M. (2004). Benchmarking design‐build procurement
systems in construction. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 11(3), 287–302.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770410538763
Le-Hoai, L., Lee, Y. D., & Lee, J. Y. (2008). Delay and cost overruns in Vietnam large construction
projects: A comparison with other selected countries. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 12(6),
367–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-008-0367-7
Lessing, J., & Brege, S. (2015). Business models for product-oriented house-building companies –
experience from two Swedish case studies. Construction Innovation, 15(4), 449–472.
https://doi.org/10.1108/CI-02-2015-0009
Lloyd-walker, B. M., Mills, A. J., & Walker, D. H. T. (2014). Enabling construction innovation: the
role of a no-blame culture as a collaboration behavioural driver in project alliances. Construction
Management and Economics, 32(3), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2014.892629
Love, P. E. D., Zhou, J., Edwards, D. J., Irani, Z., & Sing, C.-P. (2017a). Off the rails: The cost
performance of infrastructure rail projects. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice, 99, 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.02.008
Love, P. E. D., Davis, P. R., Sai On Cheung, & Irani, Z. (2011). Causal Discovery and Inference of
Project Disputes. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 58(3), 400–411.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2010.2048907
Love, P. E. D., Irani, Z., Smith, J., Regan, M., & Liu, J. (2017b). Cost performance of public
infrastructure projects: the nemesis and nirvana of change-orders. Production Planning &
Control, 28(13), 1081–1092. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2017.1333647
Mahamid, I. (2017). Analysis of common factors leading to conflicts between contractors and their
subcontractors in building construction projects. Australian Journal of Multi-Disciplinary
Engineering, 13(1), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/14488388.2017.1342515
Mathivathanan, D., Kannan, D., & Haq, A. N. (2018). Sustainable supply chain management
practices in Indian automotive industry: A multi-stakeholder view. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 128, 284–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.01.003
Mishra, D., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., & Hazen, B. (2017). Green supply chain
performance measures: A review and bibliometric analysis. Sustainable Production and
Consumption, 10, 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2017.01.003
Mitkus, S., & Mitkus, T. (2014). Causes of Conflicts in a Construction Industry: A Communicational
Approach. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 110, 777–786.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.922
Nguyen, L., & Watanabe, T. (2017). The Impact of Project Organizational Culture on the
Performance of Construction Projects. Sustainability, 9(5), 781.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050781
Orangi, A., Palaneeswaran, E., & Wilson, J. (2011). Exploring Delays in Victoria-Based Astralian
Pipeline Projects. Procedia Engineering, 14, 874–881.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.111
Osipova, E., & Eriksson, P. E. (2011). How procurement options influence risk management in
construction projects. Construction Management and Economics, 29(11), 1149–1158.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2011.639379

128
 Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management

_________________________________________________________________________________ 2018 / 6

Palaneeswaran, E., & Kumaraswamy, M. (2001). Recent advances and proposed improvements in
contractor prequalification methodologies. Building and Environment, 36(1), 73–87.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1323(99)00069-4
Palaneeswaran, E., Kumaraswamy, M. M., & Zhang, X. Q. (2001). Reforging construction supply
chains: European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 7(3), 165–178.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-7012(00)00025-3
Palaneeswaran, E., & Kumaraswamy, M. M. (2000). Contractor Selection for Design/Build Projects.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 126(5), 331–339.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2000)126:5(331)
Palaneeswaran, E., & Kumaraswamy, M. M. (2008). An integrated decision support system for
dealing with time extension entitlements. Automation in Construction, 17(4), 425–438.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2007.08.002
Qu, X., Meng, Q., Yuanita, V., & Wong, Y. H. (2011). Design and implementation of a quantitative
risk assessment software tool for Singapore road tunnels. Expert Systems with Applications.
38(11), 13827-13834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.186
Rahmani, F., Maqsood, T., & Khalfan, M. (2017). An overview of construction procurement
methods in Australia. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 24(4), 593–
609. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-03-2016-0058
Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of
Services Sciences, 1(1), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590
Sanderson, M., Allen, P., Gill, R., & Garnett, E. (2018). New models of contracting in the public
sector: A review of alliance contracting, prime contracting and outcome‐based contracting
literature. Social Policy & Administration. 52(5), 1060-1083. Retrieved from
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/spol.12322
Segerstedt, A., & Olofsson, T. (2010). Supply chains in the construction industry. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, 15(5), 347–353.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541011068260
Shehu, Z., Endut, I. R., Akintoye, A., & Holt, G. D. (2014). Cost overrun in the Malaysian
construction industry projects: A deeper insight. International Journal of Project Management,
32(8), 1471–1480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.04.004
Shen, L., Zhang, Z., & Long, Z. (2017). Significant barriers to green procurement in real estate
development. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 116, 160–168.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.10.004
Sigmund, Z., & Radujković, M. (2014). Risk Breakdown Structure for Construction Projects on
Existing Buildings. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 119, 894–901.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.100
Singh, M. K., Deep, S., & Banerjee, R. (2017). Risk management in construction projects as per
indian scenario. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(3), 127–136.
Srivastava, S. D., & Banerjee, R. (2015). Hybrid renewable energy systems & their suitability in
rural regions. IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, 12(3), 117–120. Retrieved
from http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jmce/papers/vol12-issue3/Version-1/S01231117120.pdf
Wahaj, M., Deep, S., Dixit, R. B., & Khan, M. B. (2017). A study of project success and procurement
frameworks in indian construction industry. International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology, 8(3), 167–174.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=3
Walker, D. H. T., Davis, P. R., & Stevenson, A. (2017). Coping with uncertainty and ambiguity
through team collaboration in infrastructure projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 35(2), 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.11.001
Wood, P. S. (2010). Comparing cost uplift in infrastructure delivery methods: A case based
approach. (A dissertation submitted as fulfilment for the Degree of Doctor of Business
Administration, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane). Available from Alliance
Contracting Electronic Law Journal. http://alliancecontractingelectroniclawjournal.com/wood-
p-2010-comparing-cost-uplift-in-infrastructure-delivery-methods-a-case-based-approach/

129
 Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management

_________________________________________________________________________________ 2018 / 6

Yeo, K., & Ning, J. (2002). Integrating supply chain and critical chain concepts in engineer-procure-
construct (EPC) projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20(4), 253–262.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00021-7

AUTHORS’ SHORT BIOGRAPHIES

Shumank Deep is pursuing his Doctor of Philosophy at the School of Architecture and Built
Environment, University of Newcastle, Australia. Previously he worked as an Assistant Professor at
the Department of Civil Engineering, Integral University, Lucknow, UP, India. His research interests
include construction delays, procurement process of construction projects, lean construction
management, equipment management and supply chain management.

Mohd Asim is a Lecturer at the Department of Civil Engineering, Himalayan Institute of

Technology and Management, Lucknow. He obtained the Professional Bachelor Degree with honors
in Civil Engineering and was awarded a gold medal for M.Tech (Construction Technology and
Management). His research interests include real estate construction project delays, sustainable
construction, construction equipment maintenance and lean construction management.

Neeti Kesarwani works as a Business Development Manager at Thomas International, India. She
has 7 years of work experience from ITES and pharmaceutical industry. She has completed her
Master’s Post-graduation in Business Development at Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, India.
Her research interests include business analytics and psychometrics.

Shweta Kandpal works as an Environmental Consultant at Aqua Explorers, India. She completed
her Bachelor’s studies in Environmental Engineering in 2003, followed by Master’s studies in
Technology at the National Institute of Technology, Allahabad, India with specialisation in
Environmental Geotechnology.

130