PROBABILISTIC MODELS FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS'

DURATIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST

By

Waleed Mahfouz Mohammed Ali Youssef

A Thesis Submitted to the

Faculty of Engineering at Cairo University
in Partial Fulfilment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
in
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, CAIRO UNIVERSITY

GIZA, EGYPT
2014
PROBABILISTIC MODELS FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS'
DURATIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST

By
Waleed Mahfouz Mohammed Ali Youssef

A Thesis Submitted to the

Faculty of Engineering at Cairo University
in Partial Fulfilment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
in
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Under the Supervision of

Prof. Dr. Osman Mohammed Osman Ramadan
Professor of Structural Analysis and Mechanics
Structural Engineering
Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, CAIRO UNIVERSITY

GIZA, EGYPT
2014
PROBABILISTIC MODELS FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS'
DURATIONS IN THE MIDDLE EAST

By
Waleed Mahfouz Mohammed Ali Youssef

A Thesis Submitted to the

Faculty of Engineering at Cairo University
in Partial Fulfilment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
in
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Approved by the

Examining Committee

____________________________
Prof. Dr. Osman Mohammed Osman Ramadan, Thesis Main Advisor
Professor of Structural Analysis and Mechanics
Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University

____________________________
Prof. Dr. Metwally Abdelaziz Ahmed, Internal Examiner
Professor of Structural Analysis and Mechanics
Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University

____________________________
Prof. Dr. Ibrahim Abdul Rashid Nosair, External Examiner
Professor of Construction Engineering and Management
Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, CAIRO UNIVERSITY

GIZA, EGYPT
2014
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like also to express my special appreciation and thanks to my advisor Professor
Dr. Osman Ramadan, he has been a tremendous mentor for me. I would like to thank
Dr. Osman for encouraging my research and for allowing me to grow as a researcher.
Dr. Osman’s advice on my research as well as on my career has been priceless.

I would like to express the deepest appreciation to Professor Dr. Karim El-Dash, for
making this research possible. His support, guidance, advice throughout the research, is
greatly appreciated. Indeed, without his guidance, I would not be able to put the topic
together. Professor Dr. El-Dash actually acted as a co-supervisor for me. However, as I was
busy on research, I did not follow-up the required paper work to add him as a co-supervisor
until it was too late. Therefore, the self-denial of Dr. Karim allowed this thesis to appear
without troubles or further delay.

i
 ‫اَّللِ ال هر ْحمَ ِن ال هرحِيم‬
‫بِ ْس ِم ه‬

‫ك الهتِي‬ ‫ت‬ ‫م‬ ‫ع‬‫ِ‬‫ن‬ ‫ر‬‫ك‬

‫ْ ْ َ ْ ََ َ‬‫ُ‬ ‫ش‬‫َ‬
‫أ‬ ‫ن‬‫َ‬
‫أ‬ ‫ي‬‫ِ‬
‫ن‬ ‫ع‬‫ِ‬ ‫َ‬
‫َر ْ ْ‬
‫ز‬ ‫و‬ ‫أ‬ ‫ِ‬
‫ب‬

‫ي َوأَ ْن أَ ْع َم َل‬ ‫ِ‬

‫ي َوعَلَى َوال َ ه‬
‫د‬ ‫ت عَلَ ه‬ ‫َ‬
‫أ َْ َ‬
‫م‬ ‫ع‬ ‫ن‬
‫ْ‬

‫صلِ ْح لِي فِي ذُرِيهتِي‬‫َ‬‫أ‬‫و‬ ‫اه‬ ‫ض‬‫ر‬‫ت‬ ‫ا‬

‫َ ً َْ َ ُ َ ْ‬‫ح‬‫صالِ‬

‫ين‬ ‫ك وإِنِي ِمن ا ْلمسلِِ‬

‫م‬ ‫َ‬ ‫ي‬‫َ‬‫ل‬‫ِ‬
‫إ‬ ‫ت‬‫ب‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ي‬‫ِ‬
‫ن‬‫ِ‬‫إ‬
‫َ ُْ َ‬ ‫ُْ ْ َ‬ ‫ُ‬
‫(سورة األحق اف ‪:‬آيه‪)15‬‬

‫‪ii‬‬
 DEDICATION

To The First…

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………………………….…..i
DEDICATION………………………………………………………….……..iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………….…………….……iv
LIST OF TABLES……………………….……………………………..……..x
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………...……..xiv
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS…………….………..……xx
ABSTRACT………………..…………………………..………….…..…….xxii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION…………..……………………….……….1
1.1. General………………………………………………………….……………….…1
1.2. Problem Statement……………………………………..…….………………..…..1
1.3. Objectives ………………………………………..…………….…………………..2
1.4. Methodology ………………………………………..……………………………..3
1.5. Thesis Outline ………………………………………………………………….….4

CHAPTER-2:-CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND RISK……………….

MANAGEMENT ……………………………………………..7
2.1. Introduction………………………….………………………………….….……...7
2.2. Construction Industry…………………………………………………….….……7
2.2.1. Construction Industry, Economy and National Development………….…….7
2.2.2. Construction Industry Participants….………......……………….……...…….8
2.2.3. Construction Projects Performance………………...…………………..….….9
2.3. Construction Project Management…………………..……………………....….10
2.3.1. Planning for Construction Projects………………………………........….…11
2.3.2. Scheduling of Construction Projects…………………………………….…..12
2.4. Estimation of Project and Activity Durations………………………..…..…….13
2.4.1. Estimation Models for Project Duration ……………………………...…….13
2.4.2. Estimation of Activity Duration……………………………………………..14

iv
 2.4.3. Construction Delays………………………………………………………....15
2.4.3.1. Types of Construction Delays……………………………………….16
2.4.3.2. Excusable and Non-Excusable Delays………………………………17
2.4.3.3. Independent and Concurrent Delays………………………………...17
2.4.3.4. Critical and Noncritical Delays……………………………………...17
2.5. Uncertainty and Construction Risks……………………………………….…...18
2.6. Risk Management…………………………………………….…………….….…19
2.6.1. Planning Risk Management…………………………………………………22
2.6.2. Identifying Risks…………………………………………………………….22
2.6.3. Performing Qualitative Risk Analysis………………………………………23
2.6.4. Performing Quantitative Risk Analysis……………………………………..24
2.6.5. Planning Risk Responses……………………………………………………27
2.6.6. Monitoring and Controlling Risks…………………………………………..27
2.7. Simulation and Construction Projects…………………………………..……..27
2.7.1. Simulation for Schedule Risks…………………………………………..…..28
2.7.2. Simulation and Modelling………………………………………………..….29
2.7.3. Life Cycle of Simulation……………..…………………………….…….…29
2.7.4. Probability Distribution Functions……………………………………….…30
2.7.4.1. Normal Probability Distribution Function……………………….….30
2.7.4.2. Gamma Probability Distribution Function……………………….….31
2.7.4.3. Weibull Probability Distribution Function……………………….….31
2.7.4.4. Lognormal Probability Distribution Function…………………….…31

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY…………………..……...……………...33
3.1. General…………………………….…………………….…………………….….33
3.2.-Analytical Comparison of Construction Causes of Delay in the Middle
East……………………………….…………...…………………………………..33
3.3. Time Scheduling Simulation Using Monte Carlo Simulation…………………34
3.3.1. Monte Carlo Simulation Procedures for Scheduling…...…………….……..36
3.3.2. Objectives of Investigating Actual Durations……………………………….37
3.3.3. Evaluating Probability Distribution Patterns for Activities Durations……...37
3.3.3.1. Probability Distribution Functions Utilized in Previous Studies……38
3.3.3.2. Probabilistic Model for Actual Activities Durations………………...39

v
 3.3.3.3. Goodness of Fit (Chi Square Test x2-test)……………….………….39
3.3.4.-Developing Predictive Regression Models for Estimating Activity’s
Duration………………….………………………………………………….40
3.3.5. Scope of Study………………………………………………………………43

CHAPTER-4: ANALYTICAL COMPARISON FOR CAUSES OF………

DELAY…………………………………………………….…45
4.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………..………..45
4.2. Classification of Causes of Delay…………………………………...…………...46
4.2.1. Classification of Causes of Delay in Africa………………………………....46
4.2.2. Classification of Causes of Delay in Asia………………...…………………47
4.2.3. Classification of Causes of Delay in Europe……………...…………………49
4.2.4. Classification of Causes of Delay in the Middle East……………………….49
4.2.5. Classification of Causes of Delay in North America…………...…………...55
4.2.6. Suggested Classifications for Causes of Delay……...………………………56
4.2.6.1. Design and Drawings’ Approval – Related Causes of Delay…….…58
4.2.6.2. Construction - Related Causes of Delay…………..…………….…..58
4.2.6.3. Contract - Related Causes of Delay…………………………….......59
4.2.6.4. Suppliers and Subcontractors – Related Causes of Delay………..…60
4.2.6.5. Financial and Economical - Related Causes of Delay……………....60
4.2.6.6. Government and Regulations – Related Causes of Delay……….….61
4.2.6.7. Labour and Equipment - Related Causes of Delay……………….…62
4.2.6.8. Management, Planning and Scheduling – Related Causes of Delay...62
4.2.6.9. Materials - Related Causes of Delay…………...………………...….64
4.2.6.10. Site - Related Causes of Delay……………………………….…….64
4.2.6.11. Force Majeure - Related Causes of Delay…………………….……65
4.3. The Major Causes of Delay…………………………...…………………….......65
4.3.1. Major Causes of Delay in Egypt…...……………………………………..…66
4.3.2. Major Causes of Delay in Kuwait………………………………………..….67
4.3.3. Major Causes of Delay in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia……...……………..…68
4.3.4. Major Causes of Delay in the Middle East ………………………………....68
4.3.5. Major Causes of Delay in Africa…………………………………………....70
4.3.6. Major Causes of Delay in Asia………………………………………….…..70

vi
 4.3.7. Major Causes of Delay in Europe and North America…….….………….…71
4.4. Comparison of Causes of Delay………………………...…………………….…72
4.4.1. Comparison of Causes of Delay Categories and Responsibilities in Africa...73
4.4.2. Comparison of Causes of Delay Categories and Responsibilities in Asia….75
4.4.3.Comparison of Causes of Delay Categories and Responsibilities in Europe...77
4.4.4. Comparison of Causes of Delay Categories and Responsibilities in North
America……………………………………………………………………...78
4.4.5. Comparison of Causes of Delay Categories and Responsibilities in the
Middle East……………………………………………………………….…80
4.5. Quantitative Analysis of Activities’ Delay in the Middle East………..….…....84
4.6. Recovery Status for the Delayed Activities behind the Planned Late Start
Dates…………………………………………………………………………...….88
4.7. Statistics of Activities’ Durations Classified by CSI Divisions in a Single
Project………………………………………………………………………...…..90
4.8. Quantitative Analysis of Causes of Delay Impact on Construction Activities of
a Single Project……………………………………………………….……...…..98

CHAPTER5: ANALYSIS OF ACTIVITIES DURATIONS…………………

PATTERNS…………………………………………….…..110
5.1. General…………………………………………………………………….….....110
5.2. Scope of Study…………………………………………..…………….…………110
5.3. Characteristics of Activities Phase of Construction in All Projects…..……..112
5.4. Analysis of PDF Classified by CSI Divisions for All Projects……………......119
5.5. Analysis of PDF Classified by CSI Divisions in the Same Project…………...126

CHAPTER 6: REGRESSION MODELS FOR ESTIMATING…………..

ACTIVITIES DURATIONS………………………....…....136
6.1. General……………………………………….……………………….………....136
2.6. Scope of the Study…………………………………….………………………...137
2.6. Relationship between the Estimated and the Actual Durations……………..137
6.3.1. Data Description According to Type of Work………...……….………..…140
6.3.2. Regression Models for Construction Activities……………………….…...141
6.3.3. Regression Models for Engineering-Procurement Activities…….………...148

vii
 6.3.4. Regression Models for Critical Activities……………...……….…….……150
6.3.5. Regression Models for Construction Activities in Kuwait Classified by CSI
Divisions………………………………………………………….………..152
6.3.6. Regression Models for Construction Activities in an Individual Project
Classified by CSI Divisions……………………………………….……….162
6.3.7. Influence of the Total Float of Activities on the Ratio of the Actual Duration
to the Estimated Duration………..……………………………….………..169
6.3.8. Case Study: Analysis of Actual Performance of Construction Activities in a
Single Project…………………………………………………….………...170
6.4. Relationship between Activities Budget and the Actual Durations….…...…172

CHAPTER 7: PROGRAM DEVELOPMET AND VALIDATION.…...178

7.1. Introduction…………………….……………………………………….….…...178
7.2. Program Development……………………………….……………………...….178
7.2.1. Preparation of Risks and Activities Data…………………...…………...…178
7.2.2. Monte Carlo Simulation of the Scheduling Process.…………………….…182
7.2.3. Evaluating Statistics and Curve Fitting of Activities or Projects……….….185
7.3. Validation of Regression Models on Deterministic Durations…………….…185
7.4. Questionnaire of Minimizing Delays of Construction Projects in the Middle
East……………………………………………………………………………....187
7.4.1. Questionnaire Design and Distribution …………..……………………….188
7.4.2. The Survey Sample…………………...……………………………………188
7.4.3. Questionnaire Data Collection………………...………….…......................188
7.4.4. Questionnaire Data Analysis………………………………………………189

CHAPTER 8: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS……..……………....192

8.1. Summary………………………………………………………………………...192
8.2. Conclusions………………………………………………………………….…..194
8.2.1. Analytical Comparisons of Causes of Delay……………………………… 194
8.2.2. Evaluating the Best PDF to Represent Activities’ Durations…………….. 195
8.2.3. Developing Regression Models for Estimating Activities’ Durations…… 195
8.2.4. Methods of Minimizing Construction Delays..............................................196

viii
 8.3. Suggestions for Future Research……………………….…………………...…196

REFERENCES…………………………………………..………….…….…197
APPENDIX I: Example Project Illustrating Use of the Developed
Program……………………...……………………………..211

ix
 LIST OF TABLES

Table ‎2.1: Likelihood Rating, cited in (Cooper et al., 2005) ................................................. 24

Table ‎2.2: Distinct Uses of Simulation Techniques in Construction Industry ....................... 28

Table ‎2.3: The Common Probability Density Functions Selected for our Study ................... 32

Table ‎4.1: Classifications of Causes of Delay in Ghana ....................................................... 46

Table ‎4.2: Classifications of Causes of Delay in Asia .......................................................... 48

Table ‎4.3: Classifications of Causes of Delay in United Kingdom (UK) .............................. 49

Table ‎4.4: Classifications of Causes of Delay in Egypt ........................................................ 50

Table ‎4.5: Classifications of Causes of Delay in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) .............. 52

Table ‎4.6: Classifications of Causes of Delay in Kuwait ...................................................... 53

Table ‎4.7 Classifications of Causes of Delay in Jordan ........................................................ 54

Table ‎4.8 Classifications of Causes of Delay in United Arab Emirates (UAE) ..................... 54

Table ‎4.9: Classifications of Causes of Delay in the USA .................................................... 55

Table ‎4.10: Suggested Classifications for Causes of Delay together with Referenced
Publications .................................................................................................... 57

Table ‎4.11: Causes of Delay under Design and Drawings Approval Category ..................... 58

Table ‎4.12: Causes of Delay under Construction Related Category ..................................... 59

Table ‎4.13: Causes of Delay under Contract Related Category ............................................ 59

Table ‎4.14: Causes of Delay under Suppliers and Sub-contractors Related Category ........... 60

Table ‎4.15: Causes of Delay under Financial and Economical-Related Category ................. 61

Table ‎4.16: Causes of Delay under Government and Regulations – Related Category ......... 61

Table ‎4.17: Causes of Delay under Labour and Equipment – Related Category ................... 62

Table-4.18: Causes of Delay under Management, Planning and Scheduling – Related

Category........................................................................................................... 63

Table ‎4.19: Causes of Delay under Materials – Related Category ........................................ 64

x
Table ‎4.20: Causes of Delay under Site – Related Category ................................................ 64

Table ‎4.21 Causes of Delay under Force Majeure – Related Category ................................. 65

Table ‎4.22:Top Ten Causes of Delay in Egypt..................................................................... 66

Table ‎4.23: Top Ten Causes of Delay in Kuwait ................................................................. 67

Table ‎4.24: Top Ten Causes of Delay in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ..................................... 68

Table ‎4.25: Top Ten Causes of Delay in the Middle East Countries .................................... 69

Table ‎4.26: Top Ten Causes of Delay in Africa ................................................................... 70

Table ‎4.27: Top Ten Causes of Delay in the Asia ................................................................ 71

Table ‎4.28: Top Ten Causes of Delay in Europe and North America ................................... 72

Table ‎4.29: Delayed Activities by: (1) Early Start, (2) Late Start, (3) Early Finish, (4) Late
Finish, and (5) Increased Duration Grouped by CSI Divisions for All Projects in
the Middle East ................................................................................................... 87

Table ‎4.30: Number of Delayed Activities behind Late Start Dates and Their Recovery
Status .................................................................................................................. 89

Table ‎4.31: Statistics of Division (02): Site Works Activities .............................................. 91

Table ‎4.32: Statistics of Division (03): Concrete Works Activities ...................................... 91

Table ‎4.33: Statistics of Divisions (04): Masonry Works Activities, (05): Metal Works
Activities, (07): Thermal and Moisture Protection Activities, and (08): Doors and
Windows Activities ............................................................................................. 92

Table ‎4.34: Statistics of Division (09): Finishes Works Activities ....................................... 93

Table ‎4.35: Statistics of Divisions (15): Mechanical Works Activities and (16): Electrical
Works Activities ................................................................................................. 94

Table ‎4.36: Relationship between the Actual Durations Percentiles and the Maximum
Durations of Activities ........................................................................................ 96

Table ‎4.37: Relationship between the Actual Durations Percentiles and the Estimated
Duration of Activities .......................................................................................... 99

Table ‎4.38: Relationship between the Actual Durations Percentiles and the Mean Values of
the Actual Durations of Activities ....................................................................... 99

xi
Table ‎4.39:-Causes of Delay Relevant to Housing Projects in Kuwait according to
Contractor’s View (Extracted from (Al-Tabtabai, 2002)) ................................... 100

Table ‎4.40: Example of Risks Contribution in the Delay’s Amounts and Percentages of One
Activity in All Buildings ................................................................................... 103

Table ‎4.41: Statistics of Risks Contribution in the Delay of the Selected Seven Activities in
a Single Housing Project in Kuwait ................................................................... 104

Table ‎4.42: Risk’s Contribution to the Delay in the Selected Seven Activities in a Single
Housing Project in Kuwait ................................................................................ 107

Table ‎5.1: Summary of Studied Projects in the Middle East .............................................. 111

Table ‎5.2: Distribution of Activities According to Phase of Work (Construction and

Engineering – Procurement) .............................................................................. 112

Table ‎5.3: Mean and Standard Deviation Values for Engineering - Procurement and
Construction Activities for All Projects in the Middle East ................................ 113

Table ‎5.4: Chi Square Test Results for Curve Fitting of Construction Projects’ Activities in
the Middle East ................................................................................................. 115

Table ‎5.5: Mean and Standard Deviation Values for Divisions (03), (09), (15), and (16) ... 120

Table ‎5.6 Chi Square Test Results for Curve Fitting of CSI Divisions Activities in the Middle
East ................................................................................................................... 121

Table ‎5.7: Statistics for a Single Project’s Activities Classified by CSI Divisions .............. 127

Table ‎5.8: Chi Square Test Results for Curve Fittings of Activities in a Single Project in
Kuwait .............................................................................................................. 128

Table ‎5.9: Ranks of Curve Fitting for Each Probability Distribution Function According to
Chi Square Test Results..................................................................................... 128

Table ‎6.1: Statistics of Actual Duration Values for Construction Activities and Engineering-
Procurement Activities ...................................................................................... 141

Table ‎6.2: Regression Models, Model Constants, and r2 Coefficients for All Cases for the
Relationship between the Estimated Durations and the Statistics of the Actual
Durations .......................................................................................................... 168

xii
Table ‎6.3: The Periodical Actual Progress for Construction Activities of Different CSI
Divisions in a Single Project in Kuwait ............................................................. 171

Table ‎6.4: Budget per the Estimated and the Actual Durations in Kuwait Classified by CSI
Divisions ........................................................................................................... 172

Table ‎6.5: Regression Models, Model Constants, and r2 Coefficients for the Average Budget
of Construction Activities and the Actual Durations Classified by CSI
Divisions…………………………………………………………………………174

Table ‎7.1: Summary of Validating Regression Models on Deterministic Durations of Real

Projects in the Middle East ................................................................................ 187

Table ‎7.2: Summary Description of the Collected Questionnaires ..................................... 189

Table ‎7.3: The Effectiveness Index for Methods of Minimizing Construction Delays in the
Middle East Ranked by All Respondents ........................................................... 190

xiii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure ‎2.1: Classifications of Construction Delays Based on (Al-Ghafly, 1995; Falqi,

2004)……………………………………………………………………………...16

Figure ‎2.2: Risk Management Process Comparison as cited in (Cooper et al., 2005) .......... 21

Figure ‎2.3: Outline of Quantitative Risk Approach, Modified from (Cooper et al., 2005) ... 26

Figure ‎2.4: Quantitative Analysis Risk Model – Modified from (Cooper et al., 2005) ........ 26

Figure ‎2.5: Modelling and Simulation Processes, cited in (Oberkampf et al., 2000) ........... 30

Figure ‎3.1: General Monte Carlo Simulation Technique [Modified from (Youssef, 2005)] 36

Figure ‎3.2: True Regression Model for Scattered Data of (x,y) .......................................... 42

Figure ‎3.3: Comparing 𝜖𝑖 with the Residual as cited in (Walpole et al., 2012) .................... 43

Figure ‎4.1: Comparison among All Categories for Causes of Delay in Africa – Average of
Nine Studies ...................................................................................................... 74

Figure ‎4.2: Comparison among Responsibilities for Causes of Delay in Africa– Average of
Nine Studies ...................................................................................................... 75

Figure ‎4.3: Comparison among All Categories for Causes of Delay in Asia– Average of
Nineteen Studies ................................................................................................ 76

Figure ‎4.4: Comparison among Responsibilities for Causes of Delay in Asia– Average of
Nineteen Studies ................................................................................................ 76

Figure ‎4.5: Comparison among All Categories for Causes of Delay in Europe– Average of
Two Studies ....................................................................................................... 77

Figure ‎4.6: Comparison among Responsibilities for Causes of Delay in Europe– Average of
Two Studies ...................................................................................................... 78

Figure ‎4.7: Comparison among All Categories for Causes of Delay in the USA ................. 79

Figure ‎4.8: Comparison among Responsibilities for Causes of Delay in the USA............... 79

Figure ‎4.9: Comparison among All Categories for Causes of Delay in the Middle East
Countries– Average of 31 Studies ...................................................................... 80

xiv
Figure ‎4.10: Comparison among Responsibilities for Causes of Delay in the Middle East
Countries – Average of 31 Studies ..................................................................... 81

Figure ‎4.11: Comparison among All Categories for Causes of Delay in the Middle East
Countries: a) Egypt, b) KSA, and c) Kuwait....................................................... 82

Figure ‎4.12: Comparison among Responsibilities for Causes of Delay in the Middle East
Countries: a) Egypt, b) KSA, and c) Kuwait....................................................... 83

Figure ‎4.13: The Delayed Activities Percentages for Construction and Engineering -
Procurement Classified by Cases of Delay from Planned Dates: (1) Behind Early
Start, (2) Behind Late Start, (3) Behind Early Finish, (4) Behind Late Finish, and
(5) Greater Than the Estimated Duration ............................................................ 86

Figure ‎4.14: Relationship between the Actual Durations Percentiles (among 1271 Buildings
Construction) and the Absolute Maximum Durationsof the Selected
Activities…………………………………………………………………………97

Figure ‎4.15: Percentage of Affected Number of Activities for each Risk .......................... 105

Figure ‎4.16: Percentage of Risk Contribution of the Total Delay of the Seven Activities in
a Single Housing Project in Kuwait.................................................................. 105

Figure ‎4.17: Relationship between the Delays Percentiles to the Maximum Delay (DPM) of
the Seven Activities Due to Different Risks ..................................................... 106

Figure ‎4.18: Risks Contribution of Delay for the Selected Seven Activities in a Single
Housing Project in Kuwait: a) Civil Works, and b) Electro-mechanical
Works…………………………………………………………………………...109

Figure ‎5.1: Case Studies of Evaluating the Best Probability Density Function to Represent
Activities in Construction Projects ................................................................... 114

Figure ‎5.2: Probability Density Function PDF and Curve Fitting for Construction Activities
Durations for All Projects: a) Estimated Durations, and b) Actual
Durations………………………………………………………………………..116

Figure ‎5.3 Probability Density Function PDF and Curve Fitting for Engineering -
Procurement Activities Durations for All Projects: a) Estimated Durations, and
b) Actual Durations.......................................................................................... 117

xv
Figure ‎5.4: Probability Density Function PDF and Curve Fitting for All Construction and
Engineering - Procurement Activities Durations for All Projects: a) Estimated
Durations, and b) Actual Durations .................................................................. 118

Figure ‎5.5: Probability Density Function PDF and Curve Fitting for Division (03 - Concrete
Works) Activities Durations for All Projects: a) Estimated Durations, and
b) Actual Durations.......................................................................................... 122

Figure ‎5.6: Probability Density Function PDF and Curve Fitting for Division (09 - Finishes
Works) Activities for All Projects: a) Estimated Durations, and b) Actual
Durations ......................................................................................................... 123

Figure ‎5.7: Probability Density Function PDF and Curve Fitting for Division (15 -
Mechanical Works) Activities for All Projects: a) Estimated Durations, and
b) Actual Durations.......................................................................................... 124

Figure ‎5.8: Probability Density Function PDF and Curve Fitting for Division (16 - Electrical
Works) Activities for All Projects: a) Estimated Durations, and b) Actual
Durations ......................................................................................................... 125

Figure ‎5.9: Probability Density Function PDF and Curve Fitting for Division (02 - Site
Works) Activities Actual Durations for One Project: a) Excavation up to
Foundation, and b) Backfill till Ground Beams ................................................ 129

Figure ‎5.10: Probability Density Function and Curve Fitting for Division (03 - Concrete
Works) Activities Actual Durations for One Project: a) Isolated Footings, and
b) Casting of Ground Beams ............................................................................ 130

Figure ‎5.11: Probability Density Function and Curve Fitting for Division (07 - Thermal and
Moisture Protection Works) Activities Actual Durations for One Project:
a) Bituminous Paint to Surfaces, and b) WP for Wet Areas .............................. 131

Figure ‎5.12: Probability Density Function and Curve Fitting for Division (08 - Doors and
Windows Works) Activities Actual Durations for One Project: a) Frames for
Doors and Windows, and b) Wooden Doors..................................................... 132

Figure ‎5.13: Probability Density Function and Curve Fitting for Division (09 - Finishes
Works) Activities Actual Durations for One Project: a) External Facade Works,
and b) Ceramic Tiles - Walls and Floors .......................................................... 133

xvi
Figure ‎5.14: Probability Density Function and Curve Fitting for Division (15 - Mechanical
Works) Activities Actual Durations for One Project: a) External Manhole and
Drainage, and b) Water Supply Pipes .............................................................. 134

Figure ‎5.15: Probability Density Function and Curve Fitting for Division (16 - Electrical
Works) Activities Actual Durations for One Project: a) Electrical Pipes for Walls,
and b) Pulling Electrical Wiring ....................................................................... 135

Figure ‎6.1: Cases of Analysis of Regression Models for the Estimated Durations or Budgets
and the Actual Durations in Construction Projects ........................................... 139

Figure ‎6.2: Regression Models for Estimated Durations of Construction Activities in the
Three Countries and Actual Durations’ Statistics: a) Mean, and b) Standard
Deviation ......................................................................................................... 143

Figure ‎6.3: Regression Models for Estimated Durations of Construction Activities in Egypt
and Actual Durations’ Statistics: a) Mean, and b) Standard Deviation .............. 145

Figure ‎6.4: Regression Models for Estimated Durations of Construction Activities in Kuwait
and Actual Durations’ Statistics: a) Mean, and b) Standard Deviation .............. 146

Figure ‎6.5: Regression Models for Estimated Durations of Construction Activities in KSA
and Actual Durations’ Statistics: a) Mean, and b) Standard Deviation .............. 148

Figure ‎6.6: Regression Models for Estimated Durations of (Engineering-Procurement

Activities) Three Countries and Actual Durations’ Statistics: a) Mean, and
b) Standard Deviation ...................................................................................... 149

Figure ‎6.7: Regression Models for Actual Durations of Critical Activities in the Three
Countries Grouped by Phase of Work: a) All Phases, b) Construction; and
c) Engineering – Procurement .......................................................................... 151

Figure ‎6.8: Regression Model for Estimated Durations for Construction Activities in All
Projects in Kuwait under Division (02 Site Works) and Actual Durations’
Statistics: a) Mean, and b) Standard Deviation ................................................. 153

Figure ‎6.9: Regression Model for Estimated Durations for Construction Activities in All
Projects in Kuwait under Division (03 Concrete Works) and Actual Durations’
Statistics: a) Mean, and b) Standard Deviation ................................................. 154

xvii
Figure ‎6.10: Regression Models for Estimated Durations of Construction Activities in All
Projects in Kuwait under Division (04 Masonry Works) and Actual Durations’
Statistics: a) Mean, and b) Standard Deviation ................................................. 156

Figure ‎6.11: Regression Models for Estimated Durations of Construction Activities in All
Projects in Kuwait under Division (08 Doors and Windows Works) and Actual
Durations’ Statistics: a) Mean, and b) Standard Deviation ................................ 157

Figure ‎6.12: Regression Models for Estimated Durations of Construction Activities in All
Projects in Kuwait under Division (09 Finishes Works) and Actual Durations’
Statistics: a) Mean, and b) Standard Deviation ................................................. 158

Figure ‎6.13: Regression Models for Estimated Durations of Construction Activities in All
Projects in Kuwait under Division (15 Mechanical Works) and Actual Durations’
Statistics: a) Mean, and b) Standard Deviation ................................................. 160

Figure ‎6.14: Regression Models for Estimated Durations of Construction Activities in All
Projects in Kuwait under Division (16 Electrical Works) and Actual Durations’
Statistics: a) Mean, and b) Standard Deviation ................................................. 161

Figure ‎6.15: Regression Models for Estimated Durations of All Construction Activities in
a Single Project in Kuwait and Actual Durations’ Statistics: a) Mean, and
b) Standard Deviation ...................................................................................... 163

Figure ‎6.16: Regression Models for Estimated Durations of Construction Activities in

a Single Project in Kuwait under Division (02 Site Works) and Actual Durations’
Statistics: a) Mean, and b) Standard Deviation ................................................. 165

Figure ‎6.17: Regression Models for Estimated Durations of Construction Activities in

a Single Project in Kuwait under Division (03 Concrete Works) and Actual
Durations’ Statistics: a) Mean, and b) Standard Deviation ................................ 166

Figure ‎6.18: Regression Models for Estimated Durations of Construction Activities in

a Single Project in Kuwait under Division (15 Mechanical Works) and Actual
Durations’ Statistics: a) Mean, and b) Standard Deviation ................................ 167

Figure ‎6.19: Relationship between the Total Float and the Increment in Ratio of Mean
Actual Duration to Estimated Duration ............................................................ 169

Figure ‎6.20: The Actual Periodical Progress for Construction Activities in Different CSI
Divisions in a Single Project in Kuwait ............................................................ 170

xviii
Figure ‎6.21: Relationship between Activities’ Average Budget (1000 KD) and the Mean
Values of the Actual Durations ........................................................................ 173

Figure ‎6.22: Regression Models for the Relationship between Construction Activities’
Budgets and Actual Durations in Kuwait Classified by CSI Divisions: a) Division
02, b) Division 03, c) Division 09, d) Division 15, and e) Division 16 .............. 177

Figure ‎7.1: Data Entry Interfaces for Researches and Risks Data ..................................... 179

Figure ‎7.2: Data Entry Interfaces for Projects and Activities ............................................ 180

Figure ‎7.3: Example for a Report of Risks Assigned to Activities .................................... 180

Figure ‎7.4: Example for a Report of Risks Contribution in the Overall Values of Project’s
Risks ................................................................................................................ 181

Figure ‎7.5: Flowchart for Overall Simulation and Scheduling Process ............................. 183

Figure ‎7.6: Flowchart for Detailed Process of Simulation and Scheduling Using Microsoft
Project Software .............................................................................................. 184

Figure ‎7.7: Sample of Graphical Analysis and Curve Fitting by Automating MATLAB
Software .......................................................................................................... 185

xix
 LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AD Actual Duration

AER (Mean Actual Duration / Estimated Duration) Ratio

AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process

AOA Activity On Arrow

CASs Credibility Assessment Stages

CIB The International Council for Research and Innovation in Building

and Construction
COV Coefficient of Variation

CPM Critical Path Method

CSI Construction Specification Institute

CYCLONE CYClic Operations NEtwork

Div. Division

ED Estimated Duration

EF Early Finish

EGP Egyptian Pound

ENR Engineering News-Record

EPC Engineering, Procurement and Construction

ES Early Start

FDL Foundation Level

GDP Gross Domestic Product

HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning

KD Kuwaiti Dinar

KSA Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

LC Letter of Credits

LF Late Finish

LS Late Start

xx
MAD Mean Actual Duration

MAR (Maximum / Mean Actual Duration) Ratio

Max Maximum

MCS Monte Carlo Simulation

MDMSMs Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Support Methods

MER (Maximum / Estimated) Duration Ratio

Min Minimum

MS Microsoft

N/A Not Applicable

PDF Probability Density Function

PDM Precedence Diagramming Method

PERT Program Evaluation and Review Technique

PMR Percentile to Maximum Ratio

RD Duration Ratio

SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

SSE Sum of Squares of the Errors

SST Total Corrected Sum of Squares

Std. Dev. Standard Deviation

SWOT Strength, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats

TF Total Float

UAE United Arab Emirates

UK United Kingdom

USD United States of America Dollar

Ver. Version

WP Water Proof

xxi
 ABSTRACT

The construction project management is about quality, timely, and costly managing
construction inputs and outputs. However, its achievement continues to present a major
challenge to most large construction projects all over the world due to the high degrees of
complexity and variability. For instance, delivery of construction projects has been adversely
influenced by several drastic risks. A major and critical concern in the time scheduling
process is the accurate determination of activities durations. This calls for a
continuous improvement in the conventional techniques of estimating activity duration and in
utilizing the deterministic scheduling.
This thesis presents a comprehensive analysis of activities duration of construction
projects in the Middle East countries. The analysis was carried out on twenty construction
projects including more than 125,000 activities with a total budget of about fifteen billions
Egyptian Pounds (EGP) and comprising all engineering, procurement and construction (EPC)
activities. The thesis seeks to bridge the gap between theory and application and to utilize
a probabilistic scheduling approach that yields reliable estimations of activity duration. The
focus is to evaluate the actual behaviour of activities exposed to different types of risk and
uncertainty and to derive regression models predicting activities’ durations categorized
according to country, type of work, and to the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI)
divisions.
First, previous research on the causes of delay and the probabilistic analysis of activities
in developing and developed countries has been compiled and critically reviewed. This
review indicated that there is no generally accepted Probability Density Function (PDF) to
represent the activity duration through the simulation process. However, Beta and Triangular
distributions were the mostly used PDF’s.
Then, activity and project durations of different projects such as hospitals, hotels,
stadiums, highways, malls, and high rise buildings in Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE,
Qatar and Oman were analysed. The analysis considered the estimated durations, the actual
durations, and the budgets of the EPC activities. It also included the quantitative analysis of
causes of delay on the performance of seven repetitive construction activities in a housing
project that is composed of 1271 similar houses in Kuwait. Besides, statistical analysis and
curve fitting of the estimated versus the actual durations of activities were conducted. In

xxii
addition, the study developed predictive regression models to estimate the statistics of
activities durations. Finally, a special program that uses the concluded PDF and regression
models to predict the project’s overall durations at different levels of confidence was
developed.
It is found that the three most influencing risks on the time performance of construction
activities in Kuwait are: (1) inadequate planning and time scheduling; (2) slow financial and
payment procedures; and (3) fluctuation of productivity levels. In addition, it is found that the
best PDF to represent activities in construction projects is the lognormal distribution, while
the second best PDF is the gamma distribution. Besides, it is shown that the normal
distribution has the lowest level of confidence. Furthermore, it is found that as the estimated
duration decreases, the relative duration slippage increases. The ratio of the highest, actual
activity duration to the corresponding mean duration is always more than 4 for projects in the
Middle East, which differs from that suggested in previous studies (1.25). As a general rule,
the forecasted project’s overall duration- based on the proposed regression models and
utilizing lognormal distribution- tends to be greater than that calculated using conventionally
estimated activities. Nevertheless, validation tests showed that the forecasted projects’
durations are good estimates of the real ones. Consequently, these forecasted projects’
durations could oblige contractors to implement different methodologies and alternative plans
to reduce the project’s duration.

xxiii
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1. General
The construction industry is the key motivator for any economy. The success of
construction industry is indispensable to sustain strong national economies. In addition, the
construction management and construction planning are still inefficient of achieving their
objectives, in spite of the considerable resources and technologies allocated to the planning
and management functions. The conventional techniques of estimating activity’s duration and
time scheduling have been proved themselves as unreliable techniques in front of the growing
challenges of construction projects. Therefore, simulation techniques have been utilized to
provide reliable solutions for scheduling the risky construction projects.
This study aims to extend the body of knowledge required for the development of more
reliable models for predicting the execution time of construction projects in the Middle East
area. These time prediction models include: (1) the evaluation of the best probability density
function for activities durations, and (2) the development of reliable regression models for the
relationship between the conventionally estimated durations and the statistics of the actual
durations. These predictive models could assist in constructing a more reliable simulation of
the scheduling process that deduces projects durations’ efficiently and reliably.
This chapter outlines: the problem statement, the objectives of the study, methodology
and incorporate an outline of the structure of the thesis.

1.2. Problem Statement

The construction project management is about managing construction inputs and outputs.
Simply, the achievement of which continues to present a major challenge to most
construction projects all over the world. Why does it present construction projects with such
a challenge? Firstly, scheduling, execution and control face a multitude of risks, which are
not easy to be quantified and are even more difficult to be controlled. Secondly, quantifying
the impact of risks on the time and cost baselines are not to be through straightforward
processes or through user friendly mathematical representations or equations. In addition, the
construction projects are often characterized by their high degrees of complexity, variability,

1
and dynamic nature. In addition, the construction projects delivery has been adversely
influenced by several numbers of colossal drastic risks.
Time scheduling is the backbone for the construction projects planning, controlling, and
success. The major and the critical concern in time scheduling is the determination of
activities durations. It is widely accepted by construction managers and planning practitioners
that the more accurate the activity duration is the more efficient planning and scheduling will
be. In addition, the traditional estimation of activities durations used in Critical Path Method
(CPM) technique depends on a unique duration value for each activity. This unique duration
value resulted from the productivity rates of all resources assigned to each activity. Lana
(2006) outlined that using this estimation approach does not guarantee that the project will be
finished on time. Therefore, the development achieved by Program Evaluation and Review
Technique (PERT) was to use three point estimates for the duration of each activity. Both
techniques and all other traditional techniques ignored the effects of the potential risks that
the construction project may face. This made the traditional scheduling technique stands
powerless in front of the accelerated degrees of uncertainty and risks that the construction
projects may be exposed to. That may expose the involved parties in the construction
industries to unexpectedly immense losses. Moreover, numerous expected scenarios for
completing the project, however project managers and planners do not know anything about
the probability of each scenario. Consequently, simulation is considered the best method till
now to determine most scenarios in which it is possible to trace the stochastic critical paths of
activities in the construction projects (Lana, 2006).
There is an exigent need for a comprehensive study of the potential construction risks
(types, statistical characteristics, behaviour, representation and their impacts on construction
activities) and incorporating the development of models and algorithms for construction
projects scheduling optimization. These models should be reliable and unimpeachable for real
world uncertainties and risks. Generally, these models should consider the risky, complex and
the stochastic nature of the scheduling process, and to be adaptable and applicable to real
problems with different sizes.

1.3. Objectives
The thesis is preformed to accomplish four objectives:
1. To define, study and quantify the impacts of potential risks on the performance of
activities of large-scale construction projects in the Middle East especially Egypt

2
 and Kuwait. This objective can be performed through a comprehensive
quantitative study accompanied with creating an extensive database of extracted
risks from previous literatures.
2. To derive the best probability distribution functions to represent the durations of
activities, taking into consideration factors of uncertainty and uniqueness of
activities. This derivation expands the previously reported studies and analyses
the real results from actual projects.
3. To develop new predictive regression models those delineate the relationship
between the conventionally estimated durations or the estimated budgets and the
statistical properties of the actual durations in the Middle East Countries. These
regression models will enhance the inputs of Monte Carlo Simulation for the time
scheduling using the critical path method to predict more reliable projects’
durations.
4. To explore and identify the most effective practical solutions that can be applied
to minimize the delays of construction projects in the Middle East Countries.
5. To develop a custom made computer program with an easy graphical user
interface that enables creating risk loaded detailed time schedules. The program
processes include :(1) allocating different risks to activities, (2) applying
simulation on scheduling through MS Project software, (3) reviewing and
evaluating of the statistical properties of the project’s overall duration, and
(4) quantifying the most effective risks with the highest potential impacts.

1.4. Methodology
To achieve the research objectives, the following methodology will be followed:
 Conduct a comprehensive literature review of the causes of delay all over the
world.
 Study the existing scheduling techniques that are implemented in construction
projects.
 Develop an analysis procedure for calculating the impact of risks on the time
performance of activities in Kuwait
 Study the existing estimation techniques for projects and activities durations.

3
  Study the statistical properties of the actual and the estimated durations of
activities in construction projects. The study will classify the analysis according
to the type of work, the CSI divisions, and the country of the project.
 Analyse the best Probability Density Function (PDF) to represent activities in
construction projects. The analysis will include the graphical analysis, curve
fitting of the durations, and Chi-Square tests will be applied and compared with
four major PDF (Normal, Lognormal, Gamma, and Weibull).
 Develop regression models to describe the relationship between the statistics of
the actual durations and the estimated durations of activities.
 Develop regression models to describe the relationship between the mean values
of the actual durations and the budgets of activities.
 Prepare a questionnaire to highlight and compare the practical factors of reducing
and minimizing the delays of construction projects in the Middle East countries.
 Design a special program utilizing C-Sharp software package to perform:
organizing and allocating risks to the activities of construction projects to prepare
detailed time schedule loaded with risks; (2) automate Microsoft project software
to perform Monte Carlo Simulation for the scheduling process; (3) evaluate the
statistical parameters of the projects’ overall durations; (4) quantifying the most
effective risks with the highest potential impacts, and (5) automate MATLAB
2010b software package to create curve fitting.
 Present a case study for a computer prototype in order to validate the results of
the developed methods.

1.5. Thesis Outline

This thesis is divided into three main parts. The first part comprises the construction
industry background and literature review. It reports the performance of construction
projects, the conventional planning and scheduling techniques, and the different techniques of
estimating activities’ durations. The second part introduces the scope description of the study,
the methodology employed to quantify the effects of risks on construction projects, derive the
best PDF, curve fitting analysis, and develop regression models for estimating activities’
durations for different cases of analysis. The third part includes the applications of the
methodology on the real construction projects in the Middle East countries, the analysis of
results, validation of models, and conclusions.

4
 This thesis is organized in eight chapters. Chapter 1 is an introduction to the general
scope, methodology, and organization of the study.
Chapter 2 presents a background to the construction industry, the planning and
scheduling of construction projects, the estimation techniques for durations of activities in
construction projects, risk management, and application of simulation in construction
projects.
Chapter 3 presents the methodology developed and employed in the course of study to
assess the influence of risks on construction projects. This includes: (1) critical review and
analytical comparison of construction causes of delay in the Middle East; (2) quantitative
analysis for the impact of risks on the performance of activities during the execution phase;
(3) methodology used to generate sample functions of stochastic variables; (4) methodology
of Monte Carlo Simulation procedures for the CPM time Scheduling; (5) methodology for
evaluating probability distribution patterns for activities durations and curve fitting; and (6)
methodology for developing predictive regression models to estimate activities durations.
Chapter 4 presents the analytical comparison study for causes of delay according to the
continent, the area, and the country of application, suggesting new classification for causes of
delay as a basis for compare, evaluating the top ten causes of delay for the major countries in
the study, evaluating the performance of construction projects in the Middle East according to
CSI divisions, Evaluating the recovery status of the delayed activities behind late start dates,
and quantifying the risk impacts on an individual project with repetitive nature in Kuwait.
Chapter 5 presents the application of the methodology to the construction projects in the
Middle East countries to evaluate the best probability density function to represent activities’
duration according to different cases of analysis, such as phase of work, country, and CSI
divisions.
Chapter 6 presents the application of the methodology to the construction projects in the
Middle East countries to develop the predictive regression models that describe the
relationship between the estimated and the actual durations according to many cases of
analysis. The cases of analysis include: phase of work, country, CSI divisions in all countries,
CSI divisions in a single country, CSI division for critical activities, and a single project in
Kuwait. Furthermore, chapter 6 presents the application of the methodology to construction
projects in Kuwait to evaluate the predictive regression models that describe the relationship
between the estimated budgets and the actual durations according to CSI divisions.
Chapter 7 presents the development of C-Sharp program that automates the evaluation of
the best PDF, prepares the project data, risk data, and risk assignment to activities, prepares

5
the risk loaded detailed time schedule, extracts the statistical properties of activities’ duration
from predictive regression models, automates the simulation of time scheduling process,
predicts the project’s overall duration according to the required confidence level, and
validates the application of the suggested PDF and regression models in compare with real
projects in the Middle East countries. Furthermore, chapter 7 presents the preparation of
a questionnaire that helps in identifying and exploring the practical solutions that can be
applied to reduce the delays of construction projects in the Middle East countries.
Chapter 8 summarizes the analysis, results, and conclusions presented in earlier chapters
and recommends for future studies.

6
CHAPTER 2: CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND RISK
MANAGEMENT

2.1. Introduction
The construction industry is the most powerful motivator for any national economy. The
success of construction projects is indispensable to sustain strong national economies. The
construction industry plays a major role in the economic development as it is influencing and
influenced by the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of any country (Moavenzadeh and Rossow,
1975; Enshassi and Abu Mosa, 2008).
Every construction project is different in size, type, location, site conditions, inputs and
outputs, which make each project as a unique product and the standardization of the
construction process extensively difficult and risky. Furthermore, the construction projects
are recognized by including multitude uncertainties and risks due to the involvement of many
parties, including owners, designers, contractors, consultants, subcontractors, suppliers, as
well as the complex characteristics of major construction projects (Al Salman, 2004; El-
Sayegh, 2008). Therefore, careful attention must be directed to the control both time and
budget (Prateapusanond, 2003). Consequently, risk management techniques should be
applied to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the construction industry and to reduce
threatens and potential losses.

2.2. Construction Industry

Construction industry can be considered as that sector of the economy, which through
planning, design, construction, maintenance, and operation, transforms various resources into
constructed facilities. The main objective of the development in any country is the economic
growth. The construction industry powerfully shares in the national income and nation
economy.

2.2.1. Construction Industry, Economy and National Development

The International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction
(CIB) estimates that a dollar spent on construction may generate up to three dollars of
economic activity in other sectors (Kohler and Moffatt, 2003). Besides, the budgets of

7
construction industry are approximately 3.4 trillion (3400 billion) USD yearly, or about 10%
of the (GDP) in both developing and developed countries. Meanwhile, Construction industry
powerfully contributes over 50% of the National Capital Investment. Furthermore, it provides
around 7% of world employment that represents about 28% of the total industrial
employment (Kohler and Moffatt, 2003).
On the first hand, the construction industry in the developed countries such as the United
States of America (USA) and Canada, contributes approximately 12% of Gross Domestic
Product (GDP). Besides, the construction industry contributes about 8% of the GDP in the
United Kingdom (UK) and about 10-11% of the GDP in all other European countries.
Moreover, the construction industry employs about two million people in UK and 1.2 million
in Canada that represents about 6% of the total Canadian employment (Falqi, 2004; Moosavi,
2012).
On the other hand, a significant concern has been directed to the construction industry in
developing countries such as the Middle East countries for the last four decades. The
spending in the construction sector in Egypt was estimated to increase about 46% between
2005 and 2015 (Global Insight, 2010). In United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Palestine, the
construction sector contributes about 14% and 33% of the (GDP) respectively (Faridi and El-
Sayegh, 2006; Enshassi and Abu Mosa, 2008).

2.2.2. Construction Industry Participants

The construction industry contributes powerfully in the national economic and supports
a large number of ancillary industries and activities (Bonke and Olsen, 2010). A single
building may comprise over 60 basic materials and around 2000separate products, each with
its own lifetime and unique production/repair/disposal processes (Kohler and Moffatt, 2003).
The major participants in construction industry include architects, engineers, management
consultants, general contractors, heavy construction contractors, special trade contractors or
subcontractors, and construction workers, along with the owners, operators, and users of the
constructed facilities. The success of construction projects is very important for all project
participants as well as the community and the nation to sustain national development (Majid,
2006).

8
2.2.3. Construction Projects Performance
Construction projects are unique, complex in nature and inherently include widespread
and diverse types of uncertainties and risks. The inherent uncertainties are generally not only
from the unique nature of the project, but also from the diversity of activities and their
resources (Guo, 2004). Although the key objectives of construction projects are time, cost,
and quality, these objectives are jeopardized by delays. In addition, Completion time is
extremely important in construction: "Time is of the Essence", and "Time is Money" (Al-
Ghafly, 1995). Therefore, delays may lead to disruption of work, loss of productivity, late
completion of project, increased additional time related costs, claims, non-completion of the
work or even termination of contract (Majid, 2006). Moreover, the effects of construction
delays are not only confined to the construction industry, but also extend to other industries
and consequently influence the overall economy of a country (Faridi and El-Sayegh, 2006).
For these reasons, the performance of construction projects has been thoroughly investigated
by my researchers in both developing and developed countries.
In a study carried out by the World Bank on 1627 projects completed worldwide between
1974 and 1988, the major conclusion was that 90% of construction projects were delivered
late with a cost overrun varied between 50% and 80% (Menesi, 2007). Morris (1994)
undertook a study in the early 1980s, in which he examined 1449 separate construction
projects, and found that only 12 were delivered within budget.
On the first hand, there are multitudes of researches that investigate the construction
performance in developed countries. In the United Kingdom, a survey carried out by the
National Audit Office reported that 70% of the projects undertaken by government
departments and agencies were delivered late during 2001 (Falqi, 2004; Menesi, 2007).
Flyvbjerg et al.(2003) studied 258 projects in Denmark including 58 rail projects, 33 bridges
and tunnels projects, and 167 road projects in 20 different nations. The results showed that in
terms of costs, the transportation and infrastructure projects do not perform as planned. The
final conclusion was that approximately 90% of the total transportation and infrastructure
projects had fallen victim to time and cost overruns.
On the other hand, many investigations on the performance of construction projects in
the developing countries have been carried out. Al-Sultan (1989) surveyed the actual
performance of different types of public projects in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and
concluded that approximately 70% of the public projects (101 out of 145) had time overrun.
Al-Ghafly (1995) studied the delay in twenty of construction projects and found that the

9
average time extension for these projects was about 110% of the original projects’ duration.
In the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Faridi and El-Sayegh (2006) found that 50% of
construction projects encounter delays. In India, a study conducted by the Infrastructure and
Project Monitoring Division of the Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation in
2004 reported that out of 646 central sector projects costing about $50 trillion, approximately
40% are behind schedule (Lyer and Jha, 2006). A research by Building Cost Information
Service (BCIS) found that nearly 40% of all studied projects had overrun the contract period
(Menesi, 2007). Al-Ghafly (1995) found that the small projects that had durations of 12
months and less had experienced severe delay (143%), while the average of extension of time
granted to large and medium projects was about 30.61 % to 42.97% of the original duration.
Al-Ghafly (1995) reported that only 65% of all cases that requested time extensions were
approved for the contractors.
It is worth mentioning that the performance of construction projects showed a gradual
decline, according to the published database with the 10th annual review by the World Bank.
This gradual decline in performance was attributed to the increased levels of risks and
uncertainty for construction projects. In addition, the declined performance caused cost
overruns up to 560% of their budgets, and average time overrun of about 61% of their
contractual durations (Panthi, 2007). Furthermore, Omoregie and Radford (2006) showed in
his survey that the mean percentage of time escalation for construction projects in Nigeria
was approximately 188% of the contractual durations. In general, the recorded workflow
reliability for construction projects ranges between 30 and 60% (Ballard, 1999).

2.3. Construction Project Management

Construction Project Management is about managing construction inputs and outputs.
This accomplishment continues to present a predominant challenge to most construction
projects all over the world. This challenge arises from two basic causes. First; time
management encounter a multitude of risks are not easy to be quantified and are even too
difficult to be controlled. Second, quantifying the impact of risks on time and cost baselines
is not a straightforward process or user friendly mathematical model. Furthermore, the
construction projects are mostly characterized by their high degrees of complexity,
variability, and dynamic environment. In addition, the construction projects delivery has been
hampered by avalanches of drastic of risks that can be grouped in numerous categories such
as; force majeure, design related risks, construction risks, construction related risks,

10
management and administrative risks, and code related risks as elaborately explicated in
(Al-Khalil and Al-Ghafly, 1999; Ahmed et al., 2002; Odeh and Battaineh, 2002; Alwi and
Hampson, 2003; Falqi, 2004; Majid, 2006; Sambasivan and Soon, 2007; El-Sayegh, 2008;
Al-Kharashi and Skitmore, 2009; Fugar and Agyakwah-Baah, 2010). Therefore, the most
important function of project management is to foresee problems well in advance and
determine solutions before they arise (Mojahed, 2005).

2.3.1. Planning for Construction Projects

Project planning is a process of developing proper approaches to accomplish predefined
objectives (Prateapusanond, 2003). The construction projects are often challenged by tight
budgets, constrained time, and limited resources. In addition, the complex nature of projects,
inherent uncertainties and risks represent stumbling blocks towards achieving the project’s
goals and cause time slippage and costs overrun. These challenges have forced many
construction firms and projects managers to exert more effort in managing budget, time, and
productivity. For these reasons, the planning and scheduling appear as powerful and crucial
tasks for the completion of construction projects successfully (Wu and Soibelman, 2006).
The importance of planning has been investigated and surveyed recently by many
researchers. (Laufer & Tucker, 1987) studied the importance of implementing planning in
construction projects and concluded that the construction planning effectiveness could be
improved by enhancing the qualifications, orientations, and motivation of the parties involved
in the project. Callahan et al. (1992) reported through three surveys with the participation of
1741 construction industry participants (contractors, designers, subcontractors, construction
managers, and owners) that over half of the respondents considered the most threatening
factors to construction industry are poor planning, poor scheduling and poor contract
administration. Construction planning and scheduling provides the means to plan and manage
a construction project effectively (Prateapusanond, 2003). However, failure to manage time
properly could result in both schedule slippage and cost overruns. Therefore, tools and
techniques of control are vital to the completion of a construction project on time and within
budget. Wu and Soibelman (2006) attributed the poor quality of the planning and scheduling
to novices or junior planners who either learn planning from their experienced peers or
seniors, or accumulate their own knowledge by trials and errors. Such practices are therefore
error-prone, risk-motivator and time-consuming.

11
2.3.2. Scheduling of Construction Projects
Scheduling is the process of determining the timing and sequence of operations in the
project and their assembly to give the overall completion time (Al-Ghafly, 1995; PMI.,
2012). Time scheduling is undoubtedly the backbone for the construction projects planning,
monitoring, controlling, and success. Besides, Prateapusanond (2003) outlined the
importance of scheduling as it helps to: predict the completion time of the project and the
task, control financing, serve as a record, satisfy a contractual requirement, communicate the
construction plan, manage change and uncertainty, and support delay claims.
Projects’ managers and planners used many scheduling techniques ranging from simple
bar charts to sophisticated networks. The popular scheduling techniques include Critical Path
Method (CPM), Precedence Diagramming Method (PDM), and Program Evaluation and
Review Technique (PERT). However, the most widely used technique is the CPM, as
outlined by Kelleher (2004). Kelleher (2004) illustrated that, the implementation of the CPM
technique has increased among the top 400 contractors ranked by Engineering News-Record
(ENR) from 90% in 1974 to 98% in 2003. Meanwhile, the usage of CPM in estimation and
bidding has jumped from 19% to 54%. Furthermore, Kelleher(2004) manifested that about
75% of turnkey firms (architects, engineers and contractors) use CPM Software to plan,
schedule, monitor, control and forensic analyse delay.
The major and critical concern associated with the time scheduling process is the
determination of activities durations. The more accurate the activity duration is the more
efficient planning and scheduling will be. The conventional estimation techniques for
activities durations used in Critical Path Method (CPM) depend on a single value resulted
from the average productivity rates for all resources assigned to the activity. Most of the time
using this approach does not guarantee that the project will be completed on time
(Mulholland and Christian, 1999; Lana, 2006). The development accomplished by Program
Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) was to use three point estimates instead of one
estimate for each activity’s duration. Both CPM and PERT techniques and all other classic
techniques don’t accurately consider the effects of the potential risks that the construction
project may encounter. Therefore, the traditional scheduling techniques could be considered
powerless in front of hasty degrees of uncertainties, variability and risks that the construction
projects are often exposed to (Mulholland and Christian, 1999). Consequently, the involved
parties in the construction industries might inevitably be jeopardized to unexpectedly
immense losses.

12
2.4. Estimation of Project and Activity Durations
The realistic construction time often serves as a crucial benchmark for assessing the
performance of the project or the efficiency of the organization (Falqi, 2004).One of the
critical issues at the early stages of the project is determining the contract duration. Contract’s
durations are often defined by owners that require fast completion regardless of the volume of
work, the available productivity rates, and the contractors’ methodology to complete the
work. Consequently, unrealistic contract duration is imposed that will obviously force the
contractor either to accelerate the progress of works on the account of the desired quality, or
to perform the works as required but not on time (Falqi, 2004).However, the successful
execution of construction projects and keeping them within estimated cost and prescribed
schedules depend on a methodology that requires sound engineering judgment (Hancher and
Rowing, 1981; Falqi, 2004).Therefore, the prime parameter in reducing the probability of
construction delay is the proper estimation of the suitable project’s overall duration.
Furthermore, the second parameter in reducing the probability of construction delay is
estimating activity duration properly.

2.4.1. Estimation Models for Project Duration

The project’s estimated duration is often based on the owner’s feasibility study irrelevant
to the construction plan or construction methodology. Consequently, the estimated duration
of the project is often not reliable and hence represents a significant threat during the
execution. Therefore, the estimation of realistic project duration can be considered the prime
parameter towards reducing the probability of delay and consequently decreasing the
expected disputes between owners and contractors. Significantly, the prediction of project’s
overall duration constitutes a continual concern for construction researchers and project
managers. The techniques used for estimating project’s overall fair duration has been outlined
in many studies and considered various input parameters such as: degree of complexity,
scope of work, area for project, number of levels, function of building, client type,
procurement rout, market constraints or opportunities and start date for the project (Bustani
and Izam, 1999; Ng et al., 2001; Chan and Kumaraswamy, 2002; Chehade, 2005; Ogunsemi
and Jagboro, 2006; Martin et al., 2006; Strong et al., 2007; Odabaşi, 2009; Choudhury, 2012).
Bromilow (Ogunsemi and Jagboro, 2006) developed a model to predict project duration
based on project time-budget relationship in 1974 through investigation of 370 building
projects in Australia. Another model was developed by Al-Momani (2000). He used real data

13
to develop different quantitative regression models to estimate the project’s duration and
price. The sample consisted of 130 public projects in Jordan between 1990 and 1997. The
third model was developed by Martin et al. (2006) through surveying the performance of
2554 distinct building projects in the UK between 1998 and 2004. Martin et al. (2006)
produced a linear regression model for project duration according to building function
classification. The fourth model was developed by Abu Hammad et al. (2008). They
investigated real data for a sample of 140 construction projects in Jordan between 1994 and
2002 to develop regression models that predict project’s cost and time. Abu Hammad et al.
(2010) developed the fourth model through focusing the study on 113 public projects in
Jordan between 1994 and 2002. They derived the multiple regression models to predict the
project cost and duration depending on the scope, the area, the estimated budget, and the
estimated duration of the project.

2.4.2. Estimation of Activity Duration

The second parameter in reducing the probability of construction delay is the proper
estimation of activities duration. The duration estimate depends on many factors including,
construction execution methodology, resource availability, work quantity, nature, complexity
of work, labour and equipment productivity, quality of field management, weather changes,
site conditions and concurrent activities (Prateapusanond, 2003; Aliabadizadeh, 2009). It is
logically believed that the more activities durations are reliable the more accurate the project
completion time will be. However, (Willis, 1986; Callahan et al. 1992) pointed out that
activity durations are estimated, and that it is not essential for these estimates to be
consistently exact. In like manner, if all durations are reasonable, variations in activity
durations will compensate each other, resulting in reasonably accurate project duration. On
the contrary, (Prateapusanond, 2003) suggested that the accuracy in estimating activity’s
duration should not be overemphasized because doing so could complicate the estimation
process of the reliable duration.
The estimation of construction activity’s duration can be classified as deterministic and
stochastic depending on the project’s nature, potential risks, productivity rates, available
resources, site conditions, site location, project environment, levels of complexity, levels of
quality, expert judgment, and degrees of uncertainty (Hendrickson et al., 1987; Harmelink
and Bernal, 1998; Cheng and Wu, 2006; PMI., 2012). The non-materialized parameters such
as uncertainty levels and potential risks are incorporated as a contingency percentage (PMI.,

14
2012). On the other hand, the stochastic estimation techniques or simulation techniques are
utilized to appraise and quantify the impact of uncertainty and potential risks on activity’s
duration (Zhang et al., 2005; Cheng and Wu, 2006; Biruk and Jaskowski, 2010; Csébfalvi,
2012).
On the other hand, the critical path in the schedule is the longest path(s) of connected
critical activities through the project. Therefore, any change whether it involves reduction or
prolongation in the durations of those activities can affect the project’s overall duration. The
paths that were originally critical may later become non-critical and vice versa. The only
available way till now to capture the uncertainty in the estimation or other risks that may
affect the total completion time is through creating dynamic models. The dynamic models
simulate most of possible scenarios depending on the probability distribution function
assigned to each activity in the project (Lana, 2006). It is worth mentioning that the dynamic
nature of the CPM process allows planners and schedulers to react with potential events and
predict the risk and uncertainty impacts on project’s overall duration at any given point of
time (Prateapusanond, 2003).

2.4.3. Construction Delays

Delay is a relative term in construction and it means the time overrun either beyond the
completion date specified in the contract for the delivery of a part of the project or the whole
project (Al-Ghafly, 1995; Prateapusanond, 2003; bin Yusof et al., 2007; Kaliba et al., 2009).
Furthermore, delay of construction activities can be defined as the late completion of works
as compared to the planned schedule or contract schedule (Ahmed et al., 2002; Majid, 2006;
Fugar and Agyakwah-Baah, 2010).The consequences of time overruns are always serious and
hard to resolve. Failure to meet contractual deadlines represents financial losses and more
often has a negative impact on the project profitability for the involved parties (Braimah,
2008; Kelleher, 2004). However, understanding the causes of delay may help to curb the
problem and contribute in reducing the delay and their impacts (Majid, 2006; bin Yusof et al.,
2007; Tumi et al., 2009).
It is worth noting that, when the project duration is tight and / or the contractor expects
more risks in the project; the contractor takes into consideration additional increase in the bid
to cover any loss that may occur. The later increase is not required in most cases.
Nevertheless, the contractor loses the incentive to improve project performance, when he fails
to recover the delayed period. Consequently, the delayed period will be increased

15
progressively to unrecoverable limits (Al-Ghafly, 1995; Ahmed et al., 2002; Falqi, 2004). In
addition, construction projects have tended recently to become more time constrained, and
the ability to deliver the project in its original duration is becoming an increasingly important
element in winning a bid.
Moreover, the government authorities in the Middle East are obliged to accept the lowest
bid. This situation sometime brings unqualified contractors that may have a shortage in
resources or capabilities, which may lead to poor performance, and consequently could cause
a delay in completing the project (Al-Ghafly, 1995). Therefore, studying construction delays
and potential risks becomes an exigent requirement in order to control the estimated fair time
for the project’s overall duration. The fair project’s overall duration enables contractors to
prepare their construction strategy and methodology effectively and meticulously.

2.4.3.1. Types of Construction Delays

The construction delays can be classified in different categories, according to liability of

the contract parties (excusable {compensable or non-compensable} / or non-excusable delay),
occurrence of the delays concurrent / or independent), or effect on the schedule of the project
(critical/or non-critical delays) as shown in Figure (2.1) (Al-Ghafly, 1995; Abdul-Malak et
al., 2002; Falqi, 2004; Ahmed et al., 2002; Prateapusanond, 2003; Majid, 2006; bin Yusof et
al., 2007; Afshari et al., 2011).

Types of Construction Delays

According to Occurance of According to Liabilities of Contract According to Effect of the

Delay Parties Project's Schedule

Concurrent Independent Excusable Non-Excusable Non-Critical Critical

Non-Compensable Compensable

Figure ‎2.1: Classifications of Construction Delays Based on (Al-Ghafly, 1995; Falqi,

2004)

16
2.4.3.2. Excusable and Non-Excusable Delays

Excusable or non-excusable delays are based on the source of the causes. The main
principle for establishing whether a delay is either excusable or non-excusable is the
contractor’s liability for the delay (Prateapusanond, 2003 ; bin Yusof et al., 2007; Braimah,
2008). Delays resulting from the fault or negligence in the control of the main contractor or
his subcontractors, suppliers, or any party working on behalf of the contractor, all these
causes of delay are non-excusable (Kaliba et al., 2009; Olupolola et al., 2010). Therefore, the
contractor is not entitled to any time extension for the project. While, the causes of excusable
delays are those which do not result from the contractor’s obligations according to the
contract (Abdul-Malak et al., 2002). The basis of this should be taken from applicable
contract provisions and conditions of contract clauses (Ponce de Leon, 1987; Callahan et al.,
1992; Al-Ghafly, 1995; Majid, 2006).

2.4.3.3. Independent and Concurrent Delays

Delays can be classified according to their occurrence into two types: independent and
concurrent delays (Prateapusanond, 2003; Braimah, 2008). An independent delay is a delay,
which occurs as a result of causes related to one type of delays or one of the contract’s
parties, either the contractor or the owner. This could be a non-excusable or excusable,
compensable or non-compensable delay. The concurrent delays are two or more independent
delays, which occur at the same time as a result of different causes that could be excusable or
non-excusable, compensable and / or non-compensable (Ponce de Leon, 1987; Al-Ghafly,
1995; Falqi, 2004).

2.4.3.4. Critical and Noncritical Delays

Delay could occur at any time during the construction duration of the project. The causes
of this delay could affect any of the project’s activities on a critical or noncritical path in the
project time schedule (Prateapusanond, 2003; Braimah, 2008). Delays that result in extended
project completion times are known as critical delays. However, Non-critical delays are
those, which incurred off the critical path and do not delay the project’s contractual
completion date (Ponce de Leon, 1987; Callahan et al., 1992; Al-Ghafly, 1995; Falqi, 2004).

17
2.5. Uncertainty and Construction Risks
Uncertainties and risks inherently exist in construction projects due to the dynamic
nature of the project and the diversity of involved parties and included activities (Mulholland
and Christian, 1999; Walewski and Gibson, 2003; Guo, 2004; Song et al., 2005). In addition,
Oberkampf et al. (2000) defined uncertainty in their report as a potential deficiency in any
phase, activity or process that is due to lack of knowledge. While, Yoe (2009) defined the
Uncertainty as the situation in which a number of possibilities exist and which of them has
occurred, or will occur, is unknown. During any project, unexpected events and conditions
can occur to impact the owner’s or the contractor’s ability to proceed with project plans
(Walewski and Gibson, 2003; Motaleb and Kishk, 2010). Nevertheless, identifying
uncertainty and quantitatively evaluate its impact on the project performance can improve the
accuracy and reliability of the project’s plan (Mulholland and Christian, 1999; Song et al.,
2005; Kaliba et al., 2009; Tumi et al., 2009). The risk and uncertainty factors in construction
projects include: labour disputes, poor financial controls, bad weather, faulty design, cost
overruns, quality problems and even natural disasters (Walewski and Gibson, 2003;
Aliabadizadeh, 2009).In addition, the inherited risks affect the construction projects in all
phases, starting from the conceptual phase of the project, engineering design, placing the bid
and going through scheduling, material procurement, construction, changing orders and
ending with the commissioning, final payment and closing out of the project (Al Salman,
2004; Aliabadizadeh, 2009).
Construction risks have been investigated thoroughly in different literatures and can be
defined as the presence of potential or actual threats or opportunities that influence the
objectives of a project during construction, commissioning, or at time of use and can be
represented by Equation (2.1) (Erikson, 1979; Al-Bahar and Crandall, 1990; Jaafari, 1990;
Molak, 1997; Jacinto, 2002; Walewski and Gibson, 2003; Guo, 2004; Cooper et al., 2005;
Song et al., 2005)

Risk = ƒ (Uncertainty, Consequence) ……………………………………… (‎2.1)

In addition, Risk can be defined as the uncertain event or condition that, if it occurs, has
an effect on at least one project objective (PMI., 2012). In brief, risk occur where either the
outcome or consequence of an activity or decision is less than certain, it can be seen as the
uncertain possibility of something happening in the future (Shen and Rowlinson, 2010).

18
 In general, the predominant factor of all risk’s definitions is “uncertainty”. Some authors
considered risk and uncertainty as two similar and synonymous terms. Nevertheless,
(Al Salman, 2004) considered risk and uncertainty are two different terms meaning
completely different issues. Yoe (2009) concluded that all risks are uncertain, however not all
uncertainty is risky. In addition, certainty exists only when the decision maker can specify
exactly what will happen during the period of time covered by the decision. This type of
confidence is rarely occurring in a complex industry like construction.

2.6. Risk Management

Risk management is the process of identifying, evaluating, selecting, implementing and
monitoring actions taken to alter levels of risk (Walewski and Gibson, 2003; Tumi et al.,
2009). The objectives of risk management are to increase the probability and impact of
positive events, and decrease the probability and impact of negative events in the project to
obtain better project outcomes, in terms of schedule, cost and operations performance
(Cooper et al., 2005; Dikmen et al., 2008; Tumi et al., 2009; PMI., 2012). In addition, risk
management also can provide a framework that avoids surprises and arrange the measures of
risk reduction or mitigation. In particular, risk management assists project managers in setting
priorities, allocating resources and implementing actions and processes that reduce the risk
against achieving the projects’ objectives (Cooper et al., 2005).
(Walewski and Gibson, 2003; El-Sayegh, 2008) has summarized the risk management as
a formal and a well arranged process of systematically identifying, analysing and responding
to risks throughout the Lifecycle of a project to optimally eliminate, mitigate, control risk.
Moreover, risk management provides a structured way of assessing and dealing with future
uncertainty. The term ‘management’ implies that risks are to be treated in an organized
fashion, rather than in a haphazard way (Cooper et al., 2005). In addition, risk management
process includes fours phase or steps: (1) Risk identification; (2) Risk analysis and
assessment, including the probability of risk occurring and the impact of risks; (3) Risk
response through which risk could be eliminated, reduced, transferred or reserved; (4) Risk
outcome recording and evaluation (Walewski and Gibson, 2003; Shen and Rowlinson, 2010).
Consequently, risk management process is needed in construction projects to ensure that:
(1) all significant risks to the success of the project are identified and been made explicit; (2)
identified risks are understood, with both the range of potential consequences they represent
and the likelihood of values in that range being determined; (3) assessment is undertaken of

19
individual risks relative to the other risks to support priority setting, focusing on major risks
and resource allocation; (4) strategies and decision making for Controlling the uncertain
aspects of construction projects and for treating the risks to Minimize potential damage, and
enhance potential opportunities; and (5) the process itself and the risk treatment strategies are
implemented effectively (Walewski and Gibson, 2003; Al Salman, 2004; Cooper et al., 2005;
Dikmen et al., 2008). In general, many different processes included in risk management and
developed by many government agencies, professional project management associations or
through many relevant standards as shown in Figure (2.2). (Guo, 2004; PMI., 2012) have
outlined six processes for the project risk management that include; (1) planning risk
management; (2) identifying risks; (3) performing qualitative risk analysis; (4) performing
quantitative risk analysis; (5) planning risk responses; and (6) monitoring and controlling
risks. As shown in Figure (2.2) the risk management processes can change from agency to
agency, but the main content and concept remain the same.

20
Figure ‎2.2: Risk Management Process Comparison as cited in (Cooper et al., 2005)

21
2.6.1. Planning Risk Management
It is the process of defining how to conduct risk management activities for a project
(Walewski and Gibson, 2003). It is concerned with developing a structure for the risk
identification and assessment tasks. In addition, planning risk management processes is
important to ensure that the degree, type and visibility of risk management are commensurate
with both the risks and the importance of the project to the organization (Cleland, 2004;
Dikmen et al., 2008). Planning is also important to provide sufficient resources and time for
risk management activities. The risk management plan describes how risk management will
be structured and performed on the project (Cooper et al., 2005; PMI., 2012).

2.6.2. Identifying Risks

One of the major steps in project risk management is to determine and identify the
potential risks in the project (Dikmen et al., 2008). Every project normally involves different
degrees of risk; and yet, most project managers are ill prepared when it comes to identifying
or adequately addressing potential risks (Mulholland and Christian, 1999; Walewski and
Gibson, 2003; El-Sayegh, 2008). Identifying risk process is the process of determining which
risks may affect the project or the project objectives and documenting their characteristics.
(Al-Bahar and Crandall, 1990; Dikmen et al., 2008) defined the risk identification process as
“the process of systematically and continually identifying, categorizing, and assessing the
initial significance of risks associated with a construction project”. In addition, all involved
parties in construction projects should consider that the risks that haven’t been included or
identified cannot be studied and assessed, which leads to minimizing the project’s probability
of success. Therefore, the process of risk identification should be extensive and iterative
(Mulholland and Christian, 1999).
Furthermore, many techniques can be used for risk identification, but brainstorming is
more preferred method because of its flexibility and capability of generating a wide and
diverse range of risks (Mulholland and Christian, 1999; Walewski and Gibson, 2003). The
other risk identification and information gathering techniques include; Delphi techniques,
interviewing and focus group discussions, survey and questionnaires, examination of
previous projects, scenario analysis, expert judgment, Work Breakdown Structure, and root
cause analysis, in addition to Strength, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT)
techniques (Cooper et al., 2005; PMI., 2012)).

22
2.6.3. Performing Qualitative Risk Analysis
Risk assessment is the systematic process of quantifying and describing the nature,
likelihood and magnitude of risk associated with some substance, situation, action or event,
including consideration of relevant uncertainties (Cleland, 2004). Yoe (2009) defined the risk
analysis as the process of separating the whole of risk into its component parts by assessment
of the risk and related uncertainties for the purpose of efficacious management of the risk,
facilitated by effective communication about the risks. The objectives of risk analysis in any
field are to determine the probability of failure of a system to meet a predetermined level of
performance during a given period, to improve the decision-making process within projects,
and to help organizations to reduce risk exposure (Cleland, 2004; Guo, 2004).
Probability is an explicit way of dealing with uncertainty. It is a device that permits the
management to incorporate all the available information concerning the likelihood of risk
consequence into a single or combined number. However, without adequate data, the number
is of no use and value (Mulholland and Christian, 1999; del Caño and de la Cruz, 2002; Guo,
2004).The first tool of using risk assessment is the qualitative risk analysis. Qualitative risk
analysis is the process of prioritizing risks for further analysis or action by assessing and
combining their probability of occurrence and impact. Performing qualitative risk analysis
assesses the priority of the identified risks using their relative probability or likelihood of
occurrence as shown in Equation (2.2) or Equation (2.3) (Guo, 2004; PMI., 2012).

Risk = Sum {Probability × Severity}……………………….……………….(‎2.2)

Or

Risk = Sum {Probability × Severity × Weight}…………………………….(‎2.3)

Cooper et al. (2005) have described the consequences and the likelihoods in terms of
five-point descriptive scale, showing the likelihoods of specific risks arising and leading to
the assessed levels of consequences. Table (2.1) provides the different level of rating in more
details.

23
 Table ‎2.1: Likelihood Rating, cited in (Cooper et al., 2005)

Rating Likelihood Description Likelihood

A Almost Certain Very high, may occur at Least several times per year Probability over 0.8

B Likely High, may arise about once per year Probability 0.5–0.8
C Possible Possible, may arise at least once in a 1–10-year period Probability 0.1–0.5

D Unlikely Not impossible, likely to occur during the next Probability 0.02–0.1
10 to 40 years
E Rare Very low, very unlikely during the next 40 years Probability less than
0.02

2.6.4. Performing Quantitative Risk Analysis

Risk assessment through quantitative risk analysis process is the component of risk
analysis in which analysts describe the risks complete with their associated uncertainties.
Risk assessment is the systematic, scientific characterization of potential adverse effects
associated with hazardous substances, processes, actions or events (Dikmen et al., 2008).
It is the process of numerically analysing the effect of the identified risks on overall
project objectives. In this technique; many component uncertainties, possibly interacting or
interplaying with one another, simultaneously influence the overall uncertainty and risk
associated with a project (Cooper et al., 2005).
del Caño and de la Cruz (2002); and Guo (2004) have demonstrated the main currently
used quantitative techniques as:

• Sensitivity analysis, to discover the criticality of various project parameters,

• Expected value tables, to compare expected values for different risk responses,
• Triple estimates and probabilistic sums applied to cost estimating,
• Monte Carlo simulation, to obtain the cumulative likelihood distributions of the
project’s objectives using probabilistic estimation of the input parameters,
• Decision trees to aid decision making when there are choices with uncertain
outcomes,
• Probabilistic influence diagrams combining influence diagrams with probability and
Monte Carlo theory to simulate aspects of project risk,
• Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Support Methods (MDMSMs) for making choices
among alternatives with conflicting demands. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), for
example, is a type of MDMSM that can be used for multi-criteria selection among

24
 different risk responses, mixing qualitative and quantitative criteria,
• Process simulation, using a variety of techniques to simulate specific project
processes,
• System dynamics, combining influence diagrams with a more complex mathematical
framework to dynamically simulate specific aspects of project parameters with
feedback loops and the ability to simulate the selection among different alternative
actions, and
• Fuzzy logic, with potential applications to scheduling, cost control, and multi-criteria
selection among several alternatives.

It is worth mentioning that risks are not always independent and static in construction
projects. The effect of two events is not necessarily the sum of their individual effects. Risks
are usually dynamic, that is, their characteristic, probability and impact can change during the
project process (Guo, 2004; Dikmen et al., 2008). The modelling of risk in a quantified model
involves establishing the boundaries of the model, structuring it to consider the interactive
relationships between the risks and the project, executing it and validating it in an iterative
process, and interpreting its outputs as illustrated in Figure (2.3). In this technique the
aggregate uncertainty of the project can be quantified or evaluated. Quantitative modelling
creates a framework within which integrating individual risks into an aggregate assessment
are taking place to assist and support decision-making and management control. (del Caño
and de la Cruz, 2002; Cleland, 2004; Guo, 2004) explained that sensitivity analysis, Monte
Carlo Simulation (MCS), and Probabilistic Influence Diagrams do not take into account the
possible correlation between risk aspects, however others do. The greater the maturity of the
organization and the project’s magnitude, the more such a correlation should be taken into
account.

25
Figure ‎2.3: Outline of Quantitative Risk Approach, Modified from(Cooper et al., 2005)

Risk model parameters quantify uncertainty in the occurrence and the value of the
model’s components. Uncertainty in the occurrence of an event is described in terms of its
probability of occurring. Figure (2.4) manifests the inputs in the form of probability
distributions and the final probability distribution of the results or outputs.

Figure ‎2.4: Quantitative Analysis Risk Model –Modified from (Cooper et al., 2005)

A quantitative risk analysis is performed on risks that have been prioritized by

performing qualitative risk analysis process as potentially and substantially impacting the
project’s competing demands. In general, the projects scale and complexity have close
relation to the schedule of the project. In addition, the projects scale and complexity have
relations with the impact or severity of the risk (Guo, 2004).

26
2.6.5. Planning Risk Responses
The purpose of planning risk responses is to determine what will be done in response to
the risks and what are the options and actions to enhance opportunities and to reduce threats
to project objectives (PMI., 2012).

2.6.6. Monitoring and Controlling Risks

It is the process of implementing risk response plans, tracking identified risks,
monitoring residual risks, identifying new risks, and evaluating risk process effectiveness
throughout the project (Dikmen et al., 2008). Continuous monitoring and review of risks
ensures new risks are detected and managed. Risk control involves avoiding, transferring or
removing the risks associated with the project. Avoiding techniques involving taking special
measures such as training, preventive maintenance, and safety programs to reduce the
frequency and severity of potential losses. In addition, risk transfer means shifting the burden
of financial responsibility for potential losses to a third party, such as insurers. Furthermore,
risk removal involves eliminating those situations that involve a higher than acceptable level
of potential risk. Risk retention refers to a management’s decision to take financial
responsibility for all or some portion of a potential loss (Guo, 2004; Dikmen et al., 2008;
PMI., 2012).

2.7. SIMULATION AND CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Over the last three decades, simulation of construction operations and processes has
demonstrated momentum in its ability to provide solutions for complex problems especially
of iterative operations (Cleland, 2004). The uncertainties of construction projects and the
stochastic nature require non-deterministic scheduling techniques to improve scheduling
output through reducing the negative impacts of their associated risks. These non-
deterministic techniques require a sufficient understanding of the statistical properties of
construction activities as well as deriving the suitable probability distribution functions for
them. Simulation techniques are widely used to analyse projects and systems performance in
several purposes including: evaluation of a proposed systems; comparison between
alternative proposals; prediction of system performance under different conditions; sensitivity
analysis to determine the most significant factors affecting the performance of a system;
optimization to determine the best overall response of a system; functional relations to

27
recognize any relationship among the system significant factors; and bottlenecks analysis to
identify the factors that cause system delays (Marzouk et al., 2007).
Halpin (1977) has introduced and developed CYCLONE (CYClic Operations NEtwork)
as one of the first major computer simulation packages for construction operations. Since that
time, numerous studies have been carried out to perform multitude purposes such as:
simulation for scheduling, earthmoving simulation, simulation for resource management as
summarized in Table (2.2).

Table ‎2.2: Distinct Uses of Simulation Techniques in Construction Industry

Ser. Usage of Simulation Reference

1 Scheduling by ACD (Activity Cycle Diagram) Shi (1997)
2 Earthmoving simulation Kannan et al. (2000)
3 Simulation for resource management Zayed and Halpin (2000)
4 Simulation for risks in oil fields Jacinto (2002)
5 Simulation for drainage system maintenance Agbulos and AbouRizk (2003)
6 Simulation for risk investing in toll Roads projects Soehodho et al. (2003)
7 Simulation for Schedule McCabe (2003)
8 Simulation for bored piles construction and Zayed and Halpin (2001)
productivity assessment Zayed and Halpin(2004)
9 Concrete placing simulation Graham et al. (2004)
10 Scheduling using AOA (Activity On Arrow) Zaneldin (2005)
technique
11 Simulation for lean improvement Esquenazi and Sacks (2006)
12 Bridges construction simulation Marzouk et al. (2006)
Marzouk et al. (2007)
13 Dynamic Simulation For Optimal Cost Scheduling Abd-Allah(2008)

2.7.1. Simulation for Schedule Risks

Simulation has been extensively used in the past to analyse construction operations and
processes. In addition, Simulation has been shown to be an effective tool for improving
construction process planning (Jacinto, 2002; Graham et al., 2004). Time scheduling or cost
estimate normally performed in a traditional and deterministic behaviour, however they are
including many uncertainties and variability that should force all involved parties to depend

28
on nondeterministic or stochastic analysis. Moreover, there are many expected scenarios for
completing the project; however project managers do not know anything about the
probability of each scenario and hence they know nothing about managing or controlling
such scenarios. Simulation up till now is the best way to determine all scenarios in which it is
possible to trace the stochastic critical paths (Lana, 2006).
On the other hand, most contracting companies in the Middle East Countries are still
relying on human planners to guide for important decisions through manual techniques of
generating, reviewing, and modifying project schedules and in a case-by-case manner (Wu
and Soibelman, 2006). In addition, large volumes of computerized schedules from previous
projects are not investigated, studied, or analysed for lessons learning and knowledge
discovery after projects are finished.

2.7.2. Simulation and Modelling

The main activity of simulation process is getting computer machines to generate large
samples of observations and data records from different probability distributions, so that the
sample may be regarded as a genuine data set drawn from a population where the specified
probability distribution holds (Daly et al., 1995). Modelling and simulation are valuable tools
to assess the behaviour and performance of complex systems such as risks for construction
projects (Cleland, 2004). But, there still remains the need to evaluate the accuracy of
simulation by comparing computational predictions with experimental test data through the
process known as validation of computational simulations. To construct and setup realistic
models and simulation of complex systems, nondeterministic features of the system and the
environment must be included and vitally considered.

2.7.3. Life Cycle of Simulation

Oberkampf et al. (2000) summarized the model develped by (Balci, 1990) and
demonstrated phases of modelling and simulation developed by the Society of Computer
Simulation as shown in Figure (2.5). The model included three main processes represented by
dashed arrows as follows: 1) analysis process that is used to construct a conceptual model of
reality; 2) programming process that converts the conceptual / mathematical model into a
computerized model; and 3) computer simulation process that is used to simulate reality.
Furthermore, the successful simulation program is the one that able to answer the
question “who is going to use, what, why, and how often?” (Kannan et al., 2000). Answering

29
the previous question to ensure the success of simulation program will be through defining
the functionality of a program that represents the range of added value features such as but
not limited to modelling ability and strength, database formulation and content, deterministic
and stochastic approaches, optimization, reliability and integration.

Figure ‎2.5: Modelling and Simulation Processes, cited in (Oberkampf et al., 2000)

2.7.4. Probability Distribution Functions

For the purpose of developing any simulation model or program, the researcher, engineer
or programmer should have the statistical understanding about the probability distribution
functions that might be used. Therefore, we will present for a number of continuous
probability distribution functions. These probability distribution functions are used in our
developed program, which will be described in chapter 5.

2.7.4.1. Normal Probability Distribution Function

Undoubtedly, normal (Gaussian) distribution is the most widely used probability

distribution. Whenever a random experiment is replicated, the random variable that equals the

30
average (or total) result over the replicates tends to have a normal distribution as the number
of replicates becomes large. The normal distribution was used by (Sakka and El-Sayegh,
2007) to evaluate the impact of float losses on time and cost for construction activities.
De Moivre (Montgomery and Runger, 2003; Soong, 2004) presented this fundamental
result, known as the central limit theorem, in 1733. Random variables with different means
and variances can be modelled by normal probability density functions with appropriate
choices of the centre and width of the curve. The mean (E(X) = ) determines the centre of
the probability density function and the Variance (V(X) = 2) determines the width as
summarized in Table (2.3).

2.7.4.2. Gamma Probability Distribution Function

The Gamma Probability distribution function was used in the simulation process for
construction activities by Lana (2006), however the gamma distribution is not frequently used
as a model for a physical system (Montgomery and Runger, 2003; Soong, 2004). Gamma
distribution function and parameters are summarized in Table (2.3).

2.7.4.3. Weibull Probability Distribution Function

Weibull distribution is often used to model the time until an event happens (i.e. failure of
many different physical systems). The parameters in the distribution provide a great deal of
flexibility to model systems in which the number occurring (failures) increases with time
(Montgomery and Runger, 2003; Pham, 2006). Weibull distribution function and parameters
are summarized in Table (2.3).

2.7.4.4. Lognormal Probability Distribution Function

Variables in a system sometimes follow an exponential relationship asx = exp(w) . If the

exponent is a random variable, such as W, X=exp(W) is a random variable and the
distribution of X is of interest. An important special case occurs when W has a normal
distribution. In that case, the distribution of X is called a lognormal distribution. The name
follows from the transformation ln(W)=X . That is, the natural logarithm of X is normally
distributed (Montgomery and Runger, 2003; Soong, 2004). The Lognormal distribution
function and parameters are summarized in Table (2.3).

31
 Table ‎2.3: The Common Probability Density Functions Selected for our Study

PDF PDF Equation PDF Shapes

𝟏 −(𝒙−𝝁)𝟐
𝒇(𝒙) = 𝒆 𝟐𝝈𝟐
√𝟐𝝁𝝈
1. Normal

For−∞ < 𝒙 < ∞

 is Mean and 2 is Variance

Or
2. Gamma

α>0 and β> 0 are the shape and scale

parameters respectively

𝜷 𝒙 𝜷−𝟏 𝒙 𝜷
𝒇(𝒙) = ( ) 𝐞𝐱𝐩[− ( ) ]
𝜹 𝜹 𝜹
For x>0
𝒙 𝜷
𝑭(𝒙) = 𝟏 − 𝒆(𝜹)
3. Weibull

𝟏 (𝒍𝒏𝒙 − 𝜽)𝟐
𝒇(𝒙) = (𝐞𝐱𝐩[−
𝒙𝝈√𝟐𝝅 𝟐𝒘𝟐
for 0<x<∞

The mean and variance of X;

4. Lognormal

𝟐 /𝟐
𝑬(𝑿) = 𝒆𝜽+𝒘
𝒘𝟐 𝟐
𝟐𝜽+
V(𝑿) = 𝒆 𝟐 (𝒆𝒘 − 𝟏)

32
 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

3.1. General
The aim of this thesis is to contribute to the field of construction management through an
empirical research that would expand and existing knowledge from previous studies on the
performance of construction projects and the duration prediction models of activities. The
present study focuses on evaluating the best PDF to represent the durations of activities
through the simulation process of the scheduling of the construction project. In addition, the
present study focuses on developing a set of construction time prediction models to be used
by the construction industry in the Middle East.
This study can be regarded as a tool that support and help in facilitating the application
of Monte Carlo Simulation technique in scheduling of construction projects. In addition, this
study consists of three distinct sections which can guide projects managers, planners and
researchers to predict the impact of potential risks on the performance of construction
projects in the Middle East. The first subsidiary study includes the critical review of the
previous literature on the causes of delay. The first study also includes the statistical analysis
of the performance of construction projects in the Middle East countries. The last section in
the first study includes a quantitative analysis of the impact of construction risks on the
performance of a set of selected activities in a single project with a repetitive nature in
Kuwait. The second study includes the evaluation of the best PDF to represent activity’s
duration during the simulation process. This study can be used as a general guidance for
selecting the best probability density function and the initial value of durations in the
scheduling process. The third study focus on evaluating regression models for predicting the
statistics of the activities’ durations based on the conventionally estimated durations. The
statistics of durations will also be used to represent activities through the simulation process.
The overall study includes projects in the Middle East countries such as Egypt, the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), Kuwait, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

3.2. Analytical Comparison of Construction Causes of Delay in

the Middle East
This study is divided into three subsidiary studies; the first subsidiary study presents a
comprehensive survey that will be conducted on large volume of potential risks in

33
construction projects all over the world. The risks are compiled and reviewed for both
developing and developed countries. Throughout the study, the author designed a custom
database to facilitate sorting, grouping and processing of tremendous numbers of risks from
different sources in different countries. The study suggests eleven categories for classifying
risks based on the previous literature and according to the source of risk. Besides, the study
suggests classifying risks into four groups according to the responsible party for risk. These
classifications will help as a basis for compare to conduct an analytical comparison study on
risks of similar classifications in different areas and countries.
In addition, the analytical comparisons of similar categories of risks in different
countries, areas, or continents will be applied by calculating the relative values of risks
according to the required level, such as the level of research, the level of country, the level of
area, or the level of continent. The Relative Risk Index (RRI) value for each risk in a research
as given be Equation (3.1)

RII
Relative Risk Index (RRI) = …………………………….…………….(‎3.1)
∑RII

Furthermore, the risks are stored in a comprehensive database to help planners, projects
managers, investors or researchers to prepare construction projects schedules with the
expected risks at early stages of the project. The preparation of schedules loaded with the
expected risks can be considered as a first step towards evaluating the reliable duration of the
project.
The second subsidiary study focuses on studying the statistical behaviour of the
construction projects in the Middle East countries. This section of the study introduces
statistics of activities according to the type of work (construction, and engineering -
procurement), the country of the project, and the CSI divisions. In addition, this study shows
the behaviour of the delayed activities behind their late start dates and their recover status.
Finally, the third subsidiary study focuses on the impact of risks on the performance of the
construction activities in a real project of a repetitive nature in Kuwait, as each activity is
repeated 1271 times.

3.3. Time Scheduling Simulation Using Monte Carlo Simulation

Simulation is the process of imitating and modelling a real phenomenon or existing
system with a set of mathematical formulas. A project simulation uses a model that translates

34
the uncertainties specified at a detailed level of the project into their potential impact on
project objectives (Cleland, 2004; PMI., 2012). The conventional methods of scheduling
depend on utilizing deterministic values of activities’ durations as used in one point estimate
techniques like Critical Path Method (CPM) or even three point estimate like that used in
Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT).These techniques have proven
themselves to be insufficient tools to deal with multi-objectives projects or when dealing with
uncertainty environment.
Meanwhile, simulation of construction operations and processes has demonstrated
momentum in its ability to provide solutions and explain complex problems, especially for
iterative operations over the last three decades. The success of a simulation program lies in
harnessing the collaborative features within a complex pattern of hierarchical levels and user
groups (Kannan et al., 2000). One of the several methods for solving problems concerned
with uncertain parameters is Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) Technique (Mulholland and
Christian, 1999; Cleland, 2004). Notwithstanding, it is found that one of the most observable
hindrances for the practitioners to use simulation systems for scheduling is the high level of
complexity in estimating input parameters for any simulation techniques. Nevertheless,
researchers presented many trials to develop different types of probabilistic models to include
construction project characteristics in scheduling risk boundaries (McCabe, 2003).
There are many types of simulation techniques that have been used during the last decades.
One of these techniques is the Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) technique (Cleland, 2004).
Monte Carlo Simulation is a technique that identifies a deterministic model in which multiple
input variables are used to produce a single output value. The steps of MCS are illustrated in
Figure (3.1)

35
 Deterministic Scheduling Model

Independent Original Duration for Activities

Distribution Analysis & Assignement for Activities

Generating Random Numbers for Each Activity in the Deterministic

Model

Calculating and Scheduling Activities

Evaluating Project Durations PDF

End of Simulation

Figure ‎3.1: General Monte Carlo Simulation Technique [Modified from (Youssef,
2005)]

3.3.1. Monte Carlo Simulation Procedures for Scheduling

A. Formulate deterministic scheduling model where all original durations are used as
input to estimate one single output value for project’s overall duration.
B. Define duration of each activity in the deterministic model.
C. Generate random numbers within the selected probability distribution for each
activity.
D. The process is initiated and a random value for each activity is selected and utilized in
the calculation and scheduling to produce a single outcome value for the project’s
overall duration.
E. Repeating the process numerous times and a project’s overall duration for each time
is obtained.

36
 F. The final step of Monte Carlo Simulation is to obtain the probability distribution
function of the project’s overall duration, by drawing a histogram for the computed
output results and conclude their statistical parameters.

3.3.2. Objectives of Investigating Actual Durations

Investigating construction delays and consequent potential risks are required to assess the
equitable time of the project’s duration. This allows the contractors to prepare their
construction strategy and methodology properly and precisely. Obtaining the statistical
distribution of actual activity duration reveals the ambiguity relevant to the expected
behaviour of the activities and consequently the project’s overall duration. With such
a manner, some modifications could be applied to the contract documents in order to reduce
the disputes that may occur among the involved parties in the construction project.
The expected adjustments to the contracts may include: adopting a range of time to
accomplish the project instead of a fixed date. Also, it may include adding motivation system
for the contractor to reduce the project time and suggesting a penalty system that allows an
ascending fine system instead of a fixed penalty per day. In case of large projects, the period
for maximum penalty is short. When the contractor fails to recover the delayed period, he
loses the incentive to improve project performance. Consequently, the delayed period will be
increased progressively to unrecoverable limits (Al-Ghafly, 1995). When the project
duration is tight and/or the contractor expects more risks in the project; the contractor takes
into consideration additional increase in the bid to cover any loss that may occur. The later
increase is not required in most cases as reported by Al-Ghafly (1995).

3.3.3. Evaluating Probability Distribution Patterns for Activities Durations

The exigent need for a thorough study of the potential construction risks, including
(types, statistical characteristics, exemplification and their impacts on projects’ activities)
incorporating creating models and algorithms for construction projects scheduling. These
models should be reliable and unimpeachable for real and factual world uncertainties and
risks. Generally, these models shall consider the risky, complex and stochastic nature of the
scheduling process, and to be adaptable and applicable to actual and different size problems.
In addition, the stochastic solution for any problem is based mainly on representing the input
variable in probabilistic frame. Nevertheless, there is no reliable guide to allocate the exact
probability distribution function for the distinct schedule input such as the activity’s duration,

37
which is of course a great dilemma. Therefore, the process of risk assessment and evaluating
the probability distribution patterns to represent activity’s duration becomes exigent
Lee et al. (2013) shown that most of the tools used to control risks are based on a number
of simplifying assumptions including: 1) the possibility to estimate accurately durations,
variances, and precedence relations of project activities; 2) the probability distribution used in
representing duration uncertainties is beta distribution; 3) it is possible to apply the central
limit theorem to represent other aggregate uncertainties; and 4) only focusing on the critical
path.

3.3.3.1. Probability Distribution Functions Utilized in Previous Studies

Planning and scheduling for construction projects require an accurate estimate of the
input information relevant to comprising activities. This accuracy is required in order to
properly monitor and control the project’s time and cost. The input data for any system or
model has three situations classified by AbouRizk et al. (1991): (1) Sample observations are
available and can be reduced to applicable deterministic or probabilistic models of the input
processes; (2) sample observations are not available, and the properties of the input processes
must be based on subjective information formulated or deducted from experts on those
processes; and (3) sample observations are available in relatively small quantities so that the
sample information must be combined effectively with subjective information to obtain the
required input models. It is difficult to define the probability distribution function (PDF) for
each activity due to lack of information (Afshar, 2008; Lee et al., 2013). A thorough survey
of studies relevant to modelling durations has proven that there is no particular probability
distribution function agreed upon (Lee et al., 2013). Almost all studies follow the first
classification introduced by AbouRizk et al. (1991) as mentioned above.
Lana (2006) selected gamma distribution function to represent activities without clear
justifications for this selection. Meanwhile, Leemis et al. (2006) explained that the triangular
distribution function can be used for representing stochastic activities networks because it
includes three model parameters: the optimistic, the most likely and the pessimistic times. In
addition, Lucko et al. (2009) used triangular distribution function in their study applying
a 5% reduction from the mean value to represent the minimum value and a 25% growth as
the maximum value. Furthermore, (AbouRizk et al., 1991; AbouRizk and Halpin, 1992;
McCabe, 2003; Nasir et al., 2003; Lee, 2005; Schexnayder et al., 2005) assumed utilizing
Beta distribution function because it can be approximated exploiting three parameters for its
definition: the lower or optimistic limit, the mode or most likely value, and the upper or

38
pessimistic limit. Schexnayder et al. (2005) derived Beta distribution by getting the minimum
and maximum activity duration values depending on the performance rates for the used
equipment, while the mean value was extracted by dividing the minimum duration by a factor
0.8.
One of the most important studies is that of AbouRizk and Halpin (1992) in which they
conducted a statistical analysis for seventy-one samples of durations of construction activities
and concluded that the beta distribution is the most suitable to exemplify construction activity
durations. The Beta distribution also fulfils the desired conditions of the probabilistic
modelling for activity duration as it is: continuous over the entire range; has a unique mode in
the range; and has two positive abscissa intercepts (Schexnayder et al., 2005).

3.3.3.2. Probabilistic Model for Actual Activities Durations

A model is a simplified presentation of a system, (El-Diraby, 1993). Besides, the

probabilistic model remains an abstraction until it has been related to observation of the
physical phenomenon (Benjamin and Cornell, 1970). The third step in Monte Carlo
Simulation is to generate random numbers within the selected probability distribution
function for each activity (Cleland, 2004). Notwithstanding, there is no single probability
density function that approved to represent the estimated duration in the schedule (Lee et al.,
2013). Therefore, the second section of this study is to model the proper probability density
functions that represent activities durations during the Monte Carlo Simulation.
Modelling any real data requires two main processes: the first process is data reduction
producing histograms and sample moments (e.g. mean, variance, kurtosis, and skewness).
The second one includes the verification of the entire model and searching for the
significance of a batch of statistical data (Benjamin and Cornell, 1970). Therefore, a
comprehensive study has been carried out on actual construction projects and activities to
find the appropriate PDF that can be utilized with more confidence in the simulation process.

3.3.3.3. Goodness of Fit (Chi Square Test x2-test)

It is a measure of the discrepancy existing between the observed and expected

frequencies.

(Oi −Ei )2
x 2 = ∑n1 ……..……...….…………………………….……………...(‎3.2)
Ei

Reject the null hypothesis if:

39
 X 2 (1   / 2, )  X 2  X 2 ( / 2, )

Where  is the coefficient of confidence,

 is the degree of freedom, and equal to (n-1),

and n is the number of data.

3.3.4. Developing Predictive Regression Models for Estimating Activity’s

Duration
The third section in this study is to provide a reliable technique for estimating activity’s
durations for simulation process. This technique should consider the actual behaviour of
similar activities and their potential risks affecting the performance of large construction
projects activities. In order to develop a new reliable technique for estimating durations, we
studied the relationship between the conventionally estimated duration based on productivity
rates and the actual durations. For this purpose, we considered developing regression models
between conventionally estimated durations and actual durations. The concept of regression
analysis deals with finding the best relationship between two variables, quantifying the
strength of that relationship when there is no deterministic relationship between them
(Walpole et al., 2012). In addition, regression analysis allows for prediction of the response
values (i.e. Actual duration) given values of the regressor (i.e. Original duration).
The regression models may consider the relationship between only two variables and in
that case called simple regression model. The simple regression model can be represented by
Equation (3.3) and Figure (3.2). Meanwhile, the true regression line is described in Equation
(3.4).The response Y is random as the 𝝐 is random, while the variable x is deterministic with
negligible error. The presence of this random error 𝝐 keeps the model from becoming simply
a deterministic equation as shown in Equation (3.4). The random error 𝜖 is assumed to be
distributed with 𝐸 (𝜖 ) = 0 and 𝑉𝑎𝑟(𝜖 ) = 𝜎 2 . The assumption of 𝐸 (𝜖 ) =0 implies that at any
specific value of x, the y values are distributed around the true regression line described in
Equation (3.4). In addition, if the model is well chosen, then positive and negative errors
around the true regression are reasonable.
It is noteworthy that regression relationships are valid only for the range of the
represented data (Soong, 2004). In addition, the model described below is conceptual in
nature. As a result, the actual 𝜖 values will never be observed in practice and thus the true
regression line can’t be drawn, but be assumed (Walpole et al., 2012). Therefore, the fitted

40
regression model can be used for representing the relationship between two variables with
considered errors or residual. The fitted regression model can be defined by Equation (3.5).

Y = β0 + β1 x + ϵ….…………..………………….……………...…………….(‎3.3)

y = β0 + β1 x….…………..……………………………………...……………(‎3.4)

where β0 & β1 : regression parameters or coefficients ,

and ϵ random disturbance or random error

ŷ = b0 + b1 x….…………..……………………………………...……………(‎3.5)

Where ŷ is predicted or fitted value,

and b0 & b1 are the fitted regression parameters or coefficients.

The strength of the relationship between variables and the adequacy of the fitted model is
defined by the residual. The residual 𝑒𝑖 is defined as the error in the fit of the model. The
residual is described by Equation (3.6) and illustrated in Figure (3.3).

ei = yi − ŷi = β0 + β1 xi − b0 − b1xi ….…..………….....……………(‎3.6)

Where ei is the residual between the true and the fitted regression lines.
Therefore,

yi = b0 + b1xi + ei ….…………..…………………………...……………(‎3.7)

The residual sum of squares is often called the sum of squares of the errors about the
regression line and is denoted by SSE. The minimization procedure for estimating the
parameters is called the method of least squares. Hence, we shall find b 0 and b1 so as to
minimize SSE as given in Equation (3.8).

𝑆𝑆𝐸 = ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑒𝑖2 = ∑𝑛𝑖=1( 𝑦𝑖− 𝑦̂𝑖 )2 = ∑𝑛𝑖=1(𝑦𝑖− 𝑏0 − 𝑏1 𝑥𝑖 )2 ……....….(‎3.8)

Another important factor should be considered in determining the quality of fitting the
best regression line. This factor is defined as the measure the quality of fit or the coefficient
of determination R2 (R-Squared). The quantity of R2 is a measure of proportion of variability
explained by the fitted model. The quantity of R2 can be defined by Equation (3.9).

41
 𝑆𝑆𝐸
Coefficient of determination R2 = 1 − ……....………………..…....….(‎3.9)
𝑆𝑆𝑇

; SSE is sum of Squares of the Errors

And SST Total Corrected Sum of Squares and is given by Equation (3.10)

𝑆𝑆𝑇 = ∑𝑛𝑖=1( 𝑦𝑖− 𝑦̅𝑖 )2……...………………………………….……....…..(‎3.10)

Therefore, for SSE = 0 and thus R2=1.0 that mean all residuals are zero and the fit
is perfect.

Figure ‎3.2: True Regression Model for Scattered Data of (x,y)

42
 Figure ‎3.3: Comparing 𝝐𝒊 with the Residual as cited in (Walpole et al., 2012)

In this study, a variety of distinct regression models will be generated to delineate the
relationship between the estimated deterministic durations / estimated budgets and the
statistics of their actual durations. This derivation expands the previously reported studies and
analyse the actual results from currently running projects or completed before this study. The
generated models provide practical and easy tool for estimating the activity duration
stochastically. Besides, the generated regression models will help in defining the statistical
parameters of activities such as the mean and the standard deviation. These statistical
parameters of activities will be used in the Monte Carlo Simulation process of the scheduling
to predict a more reliable project’s overall duration. Throughout the study, many Software
Packages such as Microsoft Access 2010, Primavera Project Planner 3.1, Primavera
Enterprise 6.7, Microsoft Project 2010, MATLAB 2010b, STATISTICA 10.0, Easy Fit 5.5
and IBM Statistics SPSS Ver. 22 have been utilized in order to collect, sort, analyse, derive
statistical parameters for distributions of activity durations, check the goodness of fit, and
develop regression models.

3.3.5. Scope of Study

In order to predict more reliable activities durations, historic data from real similar
projects were collected and analysed. The estimated durations, the actual durations and the
budget values were collected from real construction projects in the Middle East countries.
The study was carried out on projects in Egypt, Kuwait, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA),

43
the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar and Oman. The study included 20 distinct Projects
including most widespread types of construction projects for both Public and Private sector
projects, and for small and large projects between 1998 and 2013. Moreover, the projects
include high rise buildings, commercial malls, hotels, stadiums, banks, administration,
residential, infrastructure and highway projects.
In addition, the study was carried on a huge amount of various activities that exceeded
125,000 activities with a total budget of about fifteen billions Egyptian Pounds (EGP) and
including Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) activities. The Engineering
activities represent all design and preparation activities such as design / shop drawings and
materials submittals including samples, manufacturer data, mock ups, and testing certificate
activities. Besides, the procurement activities represent all activities needed to secure the
delivery of the material to site including contracts, letters of credits (LC), manufacturing,
shipping and delivery to site. While, the Construction activities represent all tasks on site that
require manpower and equipment to be carried out in order to produce a structure or a part of
the structure, such as excavation, casting concrete, installation of steel structure, or fixing
Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) ducts.
The study was also carried out on a special project with a repetitive nature, as it consists
of 1271 similar housing buildings in Kuwait state. Each building consists of ground, first
floor and a roof. Each building includes most of civil, mechanical and electrical activities.
The study includes 66 groups of similar activities that make the total activities under the
study is approximately 84,000 activities.
The data will be statistically analysed in order to deduce the statistical characteristics of
activities durations for different case studies such as:(1) analysis of all activities for all
countries under the study, (2) analysis of construction activities for all countries under the
study, (3) analysis of engineering – procurement activities for all countries under the study,
(4) analysis of all activities in all projects of a single country, (5)analysis according to
Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) Master Format divisions for all projects,
(6)analysis for a single project containing activities with repetitive nature.

44
 CHAPTER 4: ANALYTICAL COMPARISON FOR
CAUSES OF DELAY

4.1. Introduction
The performance of any construction project is exposed to large and severe degrees of
fluctuation and variability due to the presence of uncertainty (Song et al., 2005). The
preparation of a reliable project plan needs identifying and accounting most of uncertain
elements that may affect the performance of the project. Song et al. (2005) found that some of
the uncertainty may be reduced or even removed when additional information becomes
available, however some remains uncontrollable. In addition, ignoring or excluding
uncertainty from the project plan may lead to increase schedule delays, cost overruns, or
both. Therefore, there is an exigent necessity to identify the project uncertainty and risks to
enhance the performance of construction projects. Furthermore, Abd El-Razek et al. (2008)
and Wei (2010) outlined that the delay in construction projects is considered one of the most
widespread problems causing a multitude negative effect on the project and its involved
parties. Moreover, delays can be minimized when their causes are identified (Majid, 2006).
Therefore, it is essential to identify the actual causes of delay in order to avoid or minimize
the delays and their relevant consequences.
In order to constitute a reliable risk framework, comprehensive discussions and reviews
of related literature have been launched to capture background knowledge about the causes of
construction project’s failure. Besides, the analysis and assessment of construction risks
across different developing and developed countries has been taken place. The reviewed
literatures include textbooks, professional and academic journals, conference proceedings and
papers, newspaper articles, research monographs, previous dissertations, workshop seminars,
magazines, newsletters, laws, governmental regulations and internet materials. The review
includes developing and developed countries such as United Kingdom, United States,
Portugal, Egypt, Kuwait, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Jordon, Lebanon,
Ghana, Nigeria, Palestine, Mozambique, Indonesia, Malaysia, China, and Hong Kong.

This chapter provides three subsidiary studies; the first study provides a comprehensive
critical review for causes of delay of construction projects, the second study investigates the
statistical properties of activities actual durations in the Middle East countries, and the third

45
study provides a quantitative analysis of the impact of different risks on a set of real activities
in a single project with a repetitive nature in Kuwait.

4.2. Classification of Causes of Delay

The researchers had suggested many different categories and classifications for risks
according to many factors such as nature of risks, impacts of risks, and responsible parties for
risks. Al-Bahar and Crandall(1990) proposed classification of potential construction risks and
causes of delay in construction projects according to the nature of risks and their potential
impacts on projects. Nevertheless, the project management institutions did not define a single
model for all factors or causes of construction delay (Falqi, 2004). Rather, every researcher
had individually classified the causes of delay in construction projects as introduced by
(Al-Sultan, 1989; Al-Ghafly, 1995; Al-Momani, 2000; Falqi, 2004; Braimah, 2008; Ammar
et al., 2009). Therefore, our study will include a comprehensive exploration for classification
of causes of delay for major countries in each area including developing and developed
countries.

4.2.1. Classification of Causes of Delay in Africa

Fugar and Agyakwah-Baah (2010) investigated the causes of delay in building projects
in Ghana. The investigation identified 32 causes of delay and categorized them into nine
major groups as summarized in Table (4.1).

Table ‎4.1: Classifications of Causes of Delay in Ghana

Reference Year Categories

Fugar and Agyakwah-Baah 2010 1. Material
(2010) 2. Manpower
3. Equipment
4. Financing
5. Environment
6. Changes
7. Government action
8. Contractual relations
9. Scheduling and controlling

46
4.2.2. Classification of Causes of Delay in Asia
Our review for the causes of delay in Asia included five countries and nine studies as
summarized in Table (4.2). Ogunlana et al. (1996) studied 26 causes of delay for 12 high rise
building projects in Thailand and classified the causes of delays into six groups depending on
the responsible party for the delay as summarized in Table (4.2).
In Malaysia, Abd. Majid and McCaffer (1998) studied the non-excusable factors of delay
that influence contractors’ performance and classified these factors into twelve groups
according to sources of occurrence as summarized in Table (4.2). In addition, Sambasivan
and Soon (2007) investigated 28 causes of delay for construction industry. Moreover, Wei
(2010) identified 52 causes of delay and their impact on construction projects. Both studies
follow the same categorization for the causes of delay as they categorized the causes of delay
into eight major groups as summarized in Table (4.2).
Chan and Kumaraswamy (1997) investigated the causes of construction projects delay in
Hong Kong in a comprehensive study including both building and civil projects. The study
identified 83 causes of delay that were categorized into eight groups as summarized in Table
(4.2).
In Indonesia, Alwi and Hampson (2003) studied 31 causes of delay in construction
projects. The levels of effect of these delays were defined by both large and small
contractors. The study categorized the causes of delay into six major groups as summarized
in Table (4-2). In addition, Majid (2006) investigated the causes of delay for construction
industry in Aceh city. The investigation included causes of delay in different projects such as
office and administration buildings, school buildings, medical centres, communication
facilities and civil projects. The investigation included 57 causes of delay that were
categorized into eight major groups as summarized in Table (4.2).
In Vietnam, Long (2004) and Le-Hoai et al. (2008) studied the causes of delay and cost
overrun in large buildings and industrial construction projects. The study included 21 causes
of delay that were grouped into six major groups as summarized in Table (4.2).

47
 Table ‎4.2: Classifications of Causes of Delay in Asia

Country Reference Year Categories

Thailand Ogunlana et al. 1996 1. Owners related
(1996) 2. Designers related
3. Construction manager or inspector related
4. Contractors related
5. Resources suppliers’ related
6. Others or external related
Malaysia Abd. Majid and 1998 1. Material related
McCaffer (1998) 2. Labour related
3. Equipment related
4. Financial related
5. Improper planning related
6. Lack of control related
7. Subcontractor related
8. Poor coordination related
9. Inadequate supervision related
10. Improper construction methods related
11. Technical personnel shortages related
12. Poor communication related
Sambasivan and 2007 1. Client related
Soon (2007) 2. Contractor related
3. Consultant related
Wei (2010) 4. Material related
5. Labour and Equipment related
2010
6. Contract related
7. Contract relationships related
8. External related
Hong Kong Chan and 1997 1. Project related
Kumaraswamy 2. Client related
(1997) 3. Design team related
4. Contractor related
5. Materials related
6. Labour related
7. Plant and equipment related
8. External related
Indonesia Alwi and 2003 1. People
Hampson ( 2003) 2. Professional Management
3. Design And Documentation
4. Material
5. Execution
6. External related
Majid (2006) 2006 1. Material Related
2. Labour Related
3. Equipment Related
4. Finance Related
5. Contractor Related
6. Client Related
7. Consultant Related
8. External Related
Vietnam Long (2004) 2004 1. Consultant
2. Contractor
Le-Hoai et al. 2008 3. External
(2008) 4. Material / Labour
5. Owner
6. Project

48
4.2.3. Classification of Causes of Delay in Europe
The first part of (Falqi, 2004) study was the investigation of causes of delay of
construction projects in the United Kingdom. The survey included contractors, consultants
and owners review for 67 causes of delay that were categorized into ten major groups as
summarized in Table (4.3).

Table ‎4.3: Classifications of Causes of Delay in United Kingdom (UK)

Reference Year Categories

Falqi(2004) 2004 1. Contractor performance / Materials
2. Contractor performance / Equipment
3. Contractor performance / Manpower
4. Contractor performance / Project management
5. Contractor performance / Project finance
6. Owner
7. Early planning and Design
8. Government regulations
9. External factors
10. Consultant related issues

4.2.4. Classification of Causes of Delay in the Middle East

In Egypt, six studies between 2005 and 2014 were compiled and reviewed. The first
study was conducted by Abdel-Gawad et al. (2005). They identified the sources of projects’
risks relevant to schedule and cost overrun under joint ventures. Abdel-Gawad et al. (2005)
identified 44 risks in 6 major classifications as shown in Table (4.4).
The second study was conducted by Abdul Rashid and Bakarman (2005) as they
identified 71 risk factors that affect construction budget and schedule. The study included
interviews with contractors ranked according to the Egyptian Federation for Construction and
Building. Abdul Rashid and Bakarman (2005) grouped six grades of contractors into three
classes, as each class of contractors includes two grades of contractors such as first class
includes contractors with first and second grade and so on. The study classified the causes of
delay into eleven different categories as shown in Table (4.4).

49
 The third study was performed by Marzouk et al.(2007) as they studied 44 causes of
disputes that affect schedule and costs of construction projects. The causes of disputes were
grouped into 4 major categories and then further subdivided into 9 groups as summarized in
Table (4.4).
The fourth study was conducted by Abd El-Razek et al. (2008), where they studied the
causes of delay on building construction projects and identified a list of 32 distinct causes of
delay. Abd El-Razek et al.(2008) grouped the causes of delay into 9 major categories as
manifested in Table (4.4).
The fifth study was conducted by Ammar et al. (2009). Ammar et al. (2009) investigated
the risks of barrage construction project and identified 40 distinct risks. The risks were
grouped in five major categories as illustrated in Table (4.4).
The sixth study was done by Marzouk and El-Rasas (2014) as they studied the causes of
delay in construction projects based on experts that represent contractors, consultants and
owners. The study identified 43 distinct causes of delay that were grouped into 7 major
categories as illustrated in Table (4.4).

Table ‎4.4: Classifications of Causes of Delay in Egypt

Reference Year Categories

Abdel-Gawad et al. 2005 1. Financial risk
(2005) 2. Legal and Cultural risks
3. Management risks
4. Market risks
5. Policy /Political risks
6. Technical risks
Abdul Rashid and 2005 1. Construction & job site risks
Bakarman (2005) 2. Design risks
3. Financial & economic risks
4. Management risks
5. Owner risks
6. Supervision risks
7. Subcontractors risks
8. Site conditions risks
9. Adverse weather and natural risks
10. Legal risks
11. Government regulation and policies risks
Marzouk et al.(2007) 2007 1. Contractual matters
2. Cultural matters
3. Management and organization / Contractors
4. Management and organization / Owners
5. Management and organization / Consultants
6. Projects matters / External

50
 7. Projects matters / Internal
8. Projects matters /Construction
9. Projects matters / Variations
Abd El-Razek et al. 2008 1. Financing
(2008) 2. Materials
3. Contractual relationships
4. Changes
5. Rules & regulations
6. Manpower
7. Scheduling & control
8. Equipment
9. Environment
Ammar et al. (2009) 2009 1. Construction
2. Managerial
3. Natural (Physical)
4. Political
5. Financial
Marzouk and El-Rasas 2014 1. Owner related
(2014) 2. Consultant related
3. Contractor related
4. Material related
5. Labour & equipment related
6. Project related
7. External related

In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, five studies are included in our review. The five studies
were completed for a period of about 14 years between 1995 and 2009. The five studies
covered most types of construction projects, such as building, infrastructure, utilities, and
housing projects for both public and private sectors.
The first study was conducted by Al-Ghafly (1995) that studied causes of delay in the
construction of public utility projects, and classified risks into six major groups as
summarized in Table (4.5).
The second study was performed by Assaf et al. (1995) and extended by Assaf and Al-
Hejji (2006) studied the causes of delays in large building construction projects. They
identified 56 causes of delay and grouped them into nine major groups as summarized in
Table (4.5).
The third study was conducted by Al-Khalil and Al-Ghafly (1999) on the causes of delay
in public utility construction projects. Al-Khalil and Al-Ghafly (1999) identified 60 causes of
delays that were categorized into six major categories. Then the contractor’s category was
further subdivided into five classifications as shown in Table (4.5).

51
 The fourth study was performed by Falqi (2004) as he investigated causes of delay of
construction projects. The investigation included the review of contractors, consultants and
owners for 67 causes of delay that were categorized into six major categories. Then the
contractor’s category was further subdivided into five classifications as shown in Table (4.5).
The fifth study was conducted by Al-Kharashi and Skitmore (2009) in which they
investigated 29 causes of delay in public sector construction projects. The causes of delay
were categorized into six major categories as shown in Table (4.5).

Table ‎4.5: Classifications of Causes of Delay in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA)

Reference Year Categories

Al-Ghafly (1995) 1995 1. Contractor performance
2. Owner administration
3. Early planning and design
4. Government regulation and policies
5. Site and environmental conditions
6. Supervision and field inspection
Assaf et al. (1995) 1995 1. Materials
2. Manpower
3. Equipment
Assaf and Al-Hejji 2006 4. Financing
5. Environment
(2006) 6. Changes
7. Government relations
8. Contractual relationships
9. Scheduling and controlling techniques
Al-Khalil and Al- 1999 1. Contractor performance / materials
2. Contractor performance / equipment
Ghafly (1999) 3. Contractor performance / manpower
4. Contractor performance / project management
5. Contractor performance / project finance
6. Owner administration
7. Early planning and Design
8. Government regulations
9. Site and environmental conditions
10. Site supervision
Falqi (2004) 2004 1. Contractor performance / materials
2. Contractor performance / equipment
3. Contractor performance / manpower
4. Contractor performance / project management
5. Contractor performance / project finance
6. Owner
7. Early planning and Design
8. Government regulations
9. External factors
10. Consultant related issues
Al-Kharashi and 2009 1. Client related
2. Contractor related
Skitmore (2009) 3. Consultant related
4. Materials related
5. Labour related
6. Contract/Relationship related

52
 In Kuwait, the first study was conducted by Al-Bahar and Crandall (1990) in which they
studied the causes of delay in construction projects and classified the causes of delay into six
main groups as summarized in Table (4.6).
The second study was performed by Al-Tabtabai (2002) in which he investigated the
causes of delay in building and housing type projects undertaken by governmental agencies.
The investigation included 53 causes of delay that were categorized into eight major groups
as summarized in Table (4.6).

Table ‎4.6: Classifications of Causes of Delay in Kuwait

Reference Year Categories

Al-Bahar and Crandall 1990 1. Force Majeure
(1990) 2. Physical
3. Financial and economics
4. Political and environmental
5. Design
6. Construction related risks
Al-Tabtabai (2002) 2002 1. Management related
2. Supervision
3. Contractor
4. Design
5. Project
6. Labour
7. Quantity
8. Contractual related

In Jordan, Odeh and Battaineh (2002) studied the causes of delay in building, road, and
water - sewer construction projects. Odeh and Battaineh (2002) identified 28 causes of delay
and grouped them into 8 major categories as shown in Table (4.7).
In the United Arab Emirates (UAE) three studies are included for the period between
2006 and 2010. The first study was conducted by Faridi and El-Sayegh (2006) as they
investigated 44 causes of delay and classified them into eight distinct categories as
summarized in Table (4.8).

53
 The second research was performed by El-Sayegh(2008) as he analysed the significance
of 42 risks that affect the time and cost in UAE and divided the significance levels according
to the review of owners, consultant and contractors. El-Sayegh (2008) classified the time
risks into ten major categories as shown in Table (4.8).

Table ‎4.7: Classifications of Causes of Delay in Jordan

Reference Year Categories

Odeh and Battaineh (2002) 2002 1. Client
2. Contractor
3. Consultant
4. Material
5. Labour and Equipment
6. Contract
7. Contractual relationships
8. External

The third study was conducted by Motaleb and Kishk (2010) where they identified 42
distinct causes of delay that were grouped into six major categories as illustrated in Table
(4.8).

Table ‎4.8: Classifications of Causes of Delay in United Arab Emirates (UAE)

Reference Year Categories

Faridi and El-Sayegh (2006) 2006 1. Contractor
2. Consultant / Designer
3. Owner
4. Financial
5. Planning and scheduling
6. Contractual relationship
7. Government regulations
8. Unforeseen conditions

54
El-Sayegh (2008) 2008 1. Owners
2. Designers
3. Contractors
4. Sub-Contractors
5. Suppliers
6. Political
7. Social & Cultural
8. Economic
9. Natural
10. Others
Motaleb and Kishk (2010) 2010 1. Client factors
2. Consultant factors
3. Contractor factors
4. Financial factors
5. Project manager factors
6. Unforeseen factors

4.2.5. Classification of Causes of Delay in North America

Ahmed et al. (2002) studied the causes of delay in Florida region in the USA. They
identified 5o distinct causes of delay and classified them into six major categories as
illustrated in Table (4.9).

Table ‎4.9: Classifications of Causes of Delay in the USA

Reference Year Categories

Ahmed et al. (2002) 2002 1. Force Majeure
2. Design-Related
3. Financial/Economical
4. Construction Related
5. Management And Administrative
6. Code Related

55
4.2.6. Suggested Classifications for Causes of Delay
After reviewing different classifications for risks in different countries or areas, we
suggest eleven major categories as a basis for comparison as summarized in Table (4.10). In
Table (4.10), each category is associated to the various publications where it was proposed or
applied. The suggested categories are applicable for most cases of risks as shown in Tables
from (4.11) to (4.21). The suggested classification is based on the different sources of risk,
such as contract related or site related causes of delay. In addition, the suggested
classification considers the distinct phases of the project’s lifecycle, such as design,
procurement and construction phases. The suggested categories are summarized as follows:
1. Design and drawings’ approval – related
2. Construction – related
3. Contract – related
4. Suppliers and subcontractors – related
5. Financial and Economical – related
6. Government and regulation – related
7. Labour and equipment – related
8. Management, planning, and scheduling – related
9. Materials – related
10. Site – related; and
11. Force Majeure – related.

56
 Table ‎4.10: Suggested Classifications for Causes of Delay together with Referenced
Publications
RF. Category*
Reference
No. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
1 Abd El-Razek et al., 2008        

2 Abd. Majid and McCaffer,
   
1998  
3 Abdel-Gawad et al., 2005     

4 Abdul Rashid and Bakarman, 2005        
5 Ahmed et al., 2002      
 
6 Al-Bahar and Crandall, 1990     

7 Al-Ghafly, 1995     
  
8 Al-Khalil and Al-Ghafly, 1999       
 
9 Al-Kharashi and Skitmore,
  
2009 
10 Al-Tabtabai, 2002    
 
11 Alwi and Hampson, 2003  
  
12 Ammar et al., 2009    
  
13 Assaf and Al-Hejji, 2006        
  
14 Assaf et al., 1995        
  
15 Chan and Kumaraswamy, 1997   
  
16 Falqi ,2004      
  
17 Faridi and El-Sayegh, 2006      

18 Fugar and Agyakwah-Baah,
    
2010  
19 Long, 2004  
 
20 Majid ,2006   
 
21 Marzouk and El-Rasas, 2014   
 
22 Marzouk et al, 2007    
 
23 Motaleb and Kishk, 2010   
 
24 Odeh and Battaineh, 2002   
  
25 Ogunlana et al., 1996 
  
26 Sambasivan and Soon, 2007    
  
27 Wei, 2010    
  
Total Number 7 6 12 2 17 12 14 14 16 13 11
* (1) Design and drawings’ approval – related; (2) Construction – related; (3) Contract –
related: (4) Suppliers and subcontractors – related; (5) Financial and Economical – related;
(6) Government and regulation – related; (7) Labour and equipment – related; (8)
Management, planning, and scheduling – related; (9) Materials – related; (10) Site – related
and; (11) Force Majeure – related.

57
4.2.6.1. Design and Drawings’ Approval – Related Causes of Delay

The first category is the design and drawings’ approval related and it was referenced 7
out of 27 reports as shown in Table (4.10). This category describes the occurred causes of
delay during the design phase of the project, such as issuing poor, unclear, or incomplete
design drawings. In addition design and drawings’ approval related category includes some
occurred causes of delay during the construction phase but relevant to design phases, such as
discrepancies between design drawings, specifications, local regulations or building codes.
The design and drawings’ approval category and relevant causes of delay are summarized in
Table (4.11).

Table ‎4.11: Causes of Delay under Design and Drawings Approval Category

Category Title Causes of Delay

1. Design & Drawings 1. Wrong, poor, incomplete, or unclear design
Approval - Related drawings or specifications
2. Delay in reviewing and approval of shop drawings
3. Discrepancies between design drawings,
specifications, local regulations, and building
codes
4. High degree of design complexity
5. Wrong selection of materials types or performance

4.2.6.2. Construction - Related Causes of Delay

The second category is construction related causes of delay and it was referenced 6 out
of 27 reports as shown in Table (4.10). This category describes all causes of delay during
construction phase such as late mobilization of contractor’s staff, labours, or equipment, poor
or late preparation of shop drawings, improper selection or incomplete study of construction
methodology, and accidents during construction due to lack of safety precautions. All other
causes of delay that might face project’s team during construction are summarized in Table
(4.12).

58
 Table ‎4.12: Causes of Delay under Construction Related Category

Category Title Causes of Delay

2. Construction 1. Late mobilization
- Related 2. Poor or late preparation of shop drawings
3. Poor or improper construction method
4. Contractor inadequate preconstruction site inspection
5. Lack of safety during construction
6. Poor quality, error of construction and defective work
during construction
7. Lack of contractor’s staff experiences
8. Changes in design, specifications or quantities during or
after construction

4.2.6.3. Contract - Related Causes of Delay

The third category is contract related causes of delay and it was referenced 12 out of 27
reports as shown in Table (4.10). This category describes all causes of delay due to the
explanation or application of contract during any phase of the project such as selection of
contract type, adversarial approach in handling disputes, delay in resolving disputes, and mis-
interpretation of contract terms by any party. All other causes of delay that might face
project’s team during construction are summarized in Table (4.13).

Table ‎4.13: Causes of Delay under Contract Related Category

Category Title Causes of Delay

3. Contract - Related 1. Bad selection or improper type of design or construction
contract (turnkey, construction only)
2. Adversarial approach in handling disputes or conflicts
between contract parties
3. Contradictory and erroneous information in the mass of
documents
4. Delays in resolving contractual issues
5. Diverse or misinterpretations of contract terms
6. Incomplete, weak or unclear contract terms
7. Ineffective delay penalty
8. Lack of dispute resolution process in case a dispute
occurred
9. Interference between various parties or contractors in the
same project

59
4.2.6.4. Suppliers and Subcontractors – Related Causes of Delay

The fourth category of causes of delay is suppliers and subcontractors related category
and it was referenced 2 out of 27 reports as shown in Table (4.10). This category describes all
causes of delay due to delivery of materials to site, performance of special sub-contractors,
and poor performance of subcontractors. All other causes of delay that might face project’s
team during construction are summarized in Table (4.14).

Table ‎4.14: Causes of Delay under Suppliers and Sub-contractors Related Category

Category Title Causes of Delay

4. Suppliers and 1. Delay of delivering materials to site
subcontractors - Related 2. Delay of manufacturing special materials
3. Insufficient performance by subcontractors
4. Improper method of construction by sub-
contractors
5. Material delivery not in accordance with
specifications
6. Lack of competent / reliable subcontractors or
suppliers

4.2.6.5. Financial and Economical - Related Causes of Delay

The fifth category of causes of delay is financial and economical related category and it
was referenced 17 out of 27 reports as shown in Table (4.10). This category describes all
causes of delay due to financial or cash flow problems by any party in the project, delay in
approving and paying payments either to consultants, main contractors, subcontractors or
suppliers, or inaccurate estimate of the budget. All other causes of delay that might face
project’s team during construction are summarized in Table (4.15).

60
 Table ‎4.15: Causes of Delay under Financial and Economical-Related Category

Category Title Causes of Delay

5. Financial and 1. Financial / Cash flow problems by owners
Economical Related
2. Financial / Cash flow problems by consultant
3. Financial / Cash flow problems by contractors
4. Financial / Cash flow problems by subcontractors
5. Financial / Cash flow problems by suppliers
6. Delay of progress payment by owner to
consultants or to contractors
7. Delay of progress payment by main contractor to
sub-contractors or suppliers
8. Inaccurate estimate of budget
9. Devaluation and varying rates of exchange

4.2.6.6. Government and Regulations – Related Causes of Delay

The sixth category of causes of delay is government and regulations – related category
and it was referenced 12 out of 27 reports as shown in Table (4.10). This category describes
all causes of delay due to government permits and regulations, building codes, and
government tendering system to the select lowest bid. All other causes of delay that might
face project’s team during construction are summarized in Table (4.16).

Table ‎4.16: Causes of Delay under Government and Regulations – Related Category

Category Title Causes of Delay

6. Government and 1. Permits and authorities approvals process
Regulations - Related 2. Change in government regulation and law (taxes
law, customs, traffic etc.)
3. Effect of social and cultural condition
4. Change in building codes
5. Government tendering system requirement of
selecting the lowest bid
6. Manpower visas difficulty and work permits
7. Public holidays

61
4.2.6.7. Labour and Equipment - Related Causes of Delay

The seventh category of causes of delay is labour and equipment – related category and it
was referenced 14 out of 27 reports as shown in Table (4.10). This category describes all
causes of delay due to shortage of manpower amounts or skills, shortage of equipment,
fluctuating of productivity rates. All other causes of delay that might face project’s team
during construction are summarized in Table (4.17).

Table ‎4.17: Causes of Delay under Labour and Equipment – Related Category

Category Title Causes of Delay

7. Labour and Equipment – 1. Shortage of labours numbers / skills
Related 2. Shortage of equipment numbers, capacity, or
operators
3. Labours dispute and strike
4. Increase of labours salaries
5. Fluctuating of labours / equipment productivity
levels
6. Personal conflicts among labours

4.2.6.8. Management, Planning and Scheduling – Related Causes of Delay

The eighth category of causes of delay is management, planning and scheduling – related
category and it was referenced 14 out of 27 reports as shown in Table (4.10). This category
describes all causes of delay due to lack of management, planning or scheduling skills or
professional from contractor’s or consultant’s staff, inaccurate estimation of contract time by
the owner, slow decision making by the contractor or the owner, and poor contract
management by the owner or the contractor. All other causes of delay that might face
project’s team during construction are summarized in Table (4.18).

62
Table ‎4.18: Causes of Delay under Management, Planning and Scheduling – Related
Category

Category Title Causes of Delay

8. Management, Planning 1. Poor coordination or communication between
and Scheduling – Related involved parties in the project
2. Ineffective contractor’s head office involvement in the
project
3. Ineffective or improper planning, scheduling,
monitoring and controlling by contractor,
subcontractors, owner, or consultant
4. Inefficient quality assurance or control by the
consultant or strict application of quality program
5. Loose safety rules and regulations
6. Shortage of administrative, technical, managerial
or interpersonal skills for contractor's, consultant's, or
owner's staff
7. Delay in preparation of change orders requests by the
contractor or approving by owner
8. Change in key staffing throughout the project
9. Change in the scope or design of the project by the
owner
10. Slow decision making by contractors or owner
11. Contractor's poor site management
12. Delay in settlement of contractor's claim by the owner
13. Excessive bureaucracy by the owner
14. Improper project feasibility study
15. Unrealistic contract duration by the owner
16. Inaccurate estimation of resources, materials, labours,
or equipment by the contractor
17. Owner’s or consultant’s failure to coordinate with
Government authorities during planning
18. Poor contract management by owner, contractor, or
consultant

63
4.2.6.9. Materials - Related Causes of Delay

The ninth category of causes of delay is materials – related category and it was
referenced 16 out of 27 reports as shown in Table (4.10). This category describes all causes
of delay due to shortage of materials, fluctuation of prices, or special requirements for
materials such as testing or storage precautions. All other causes of delay that might face
project’s team during construction are summarized in Table (4.19).

Table ‎4.19: Causes of Delay under Materials – Related Category

Category Title Causes of Delay

9. Materials – Related 1. Fluctuation of materials prices
2. Damage of sorted material
3. Increase wastage of material
4. Lack of materials on local market
5. Poor Quality of construction materials
6. Special testing required for construction materials

4.2.6.10. Site - Related Causes of Delay

The tenth category of causes of delay is site – related category and it was referenced 13
out of 27 reports as shown in Table (4.10). This category describes all site conditions such as
weather, unforeseen obstacles, site location, and site limitations with borders and
accessibility. All other causes of delay that might face project’s team during construction are
summarized in Table (4.20).

Table ‎4.20: Causes of Delay under Site – Related Category

Category Title Causes of Delay

10. Site – Related 1. Bad Weather or Environmental restrictions
2. Change or differing site condition
3. Unforeseen subsurface conditions
4. Inaccurate site investigations (soil composition,
high water table, etc.)
5. Problem with neighbours or existing buildings
6. Shortage of utilities (water, electricity, etc.)
7. Site limitations for storage, access, etc.

64
4.2.6.11. Force Majeure - Related Causes of Delay

The eleventh category of causes of delay is force majeure – related category and it was
referenced 11 out of 27 reports as shown in Table (4.10). This category describes all
unpredictable actions that are uncountable by project’s parties, natural disasters, floods,
typhoon, earthquakes, volcanoes, war, civil disorder, or revolution... All other causes of delay
that might face project’s team during construction are summarized in Table (4.21).

Table ‎4.21: Causes of Delay under Force Majeure – Related Category

Category Title Causes of Delay

11. Force Majeure – 1. Natural disasters
Related 2. Fires
3. Wars
4. Civil disorder
5. Revolution
On the other hand, a separate classification according to the involved parties’
responsibility towards the causes of delay will be used. The responsibility towards the causes
of delay will be classified into four major parties:
1. Owner;
2. Contractor;
3. Consultant; and
4. others

4.3. The Major Causes of Delay

One of the major processes required for risk management is to clearly identify potential
risks and to prioritize them in order to efficiently focus on the major risks. in addition,
prioritizing major causes of delay will assist in expediting decision making, enhance
controlling, and mitigating the potential damages effectively (Walewski and Gibson, 2003;
Al Salman, 2004; Cooper et al., 2005; Dikmen et al., 2008). Furthermore, identifying all risks
is a time, effort and cost consuming process. Therefore, it is highly recommended to identify
the most critical risks and efficiently control them with more concentration. Consequently,
major causes of delay will be explored and defined for distinct countries as an initial step to
effectively understand the major causes of delay in the Middle East countries in comparison
to other countries.

65
4.3.1. Major Causes of Delay in Egypt
The review of causes of delay in Egypt includes reviewing six studies between 2005 and
2014 as shown in Table (4.22). The six studies investigated 274 causes of delay in Egypt. the
review revealed that the top 10 causes of delay include the financial difficulties due to delay
of contractor’s progress payments by the owner that consequently leads to delaying
subcontractors’ payments by the main contractor as illustrated in Table (4.22). In addition,
changing the design by the owner during construction phase has a significant impact on the
performance of construction teams and the progress of the project. Furthermore, the lack of
experiences and administration skills by project’s parties also adversely affects the planning,
dispute's settlement, and the progress of the project. All other predominant causes of delay in
Egypt are included in Table (4.22).

Table ‎4.22: Top Ten Causes of Delay in Egypt

Research Top 10 Causes of Delay

(Abdel-Gawad et al., 2005; 1. Delay of payment by owner to main
Abdul Rashid and Bakarman, contractor, that delay the payment
2005; Marzouk et al., 2007; subsequently to subcontractors or suppliers
Ammar et al., 2009; El-Kholy, 2. Changes in design, materials or specifications
2013; Marzouk and El-Rasas, by owner
2014) 3. Lack of experience in construction law, and
management by project parties
4. Late supply of materials and equipment
5. Original contract duration imposed by owner
is too short
6. Improper pricing and budgeting
7. Excessive bureaucracy in the owner
administration
8. Subcontractors or Suppliers low credibility
9. Design defects
10. Ineffective planning and scheduling of the
project by the contractor or subcontractors

66
4.3.2. Major Causes of Delay in Kuwait
The review of causes of delay in Kuwait includes five studies during the period between
1990 and 2005. The top ten causes of delay are summarized in Table (4.23). The five studies
investigated the causes of delay in different scales and types of projects such as residential,
infrastructure, and highway projects. The overall review for these five studies concluded that
the slow procedures of payments, continuous changes and variation orders, the shortage of
manpower, the shortage of materials, the lack of planning and management skills, and the
owner’s lack of experience in the construction business are the most significant causes of
delay in Kuwait as shown in Table (4.23).

Table ‎4.23: Top Ten Causes of Delay in Kuwait

Research Top 10 Causes of Delay

(Al-Bahar and Crandall, 1990; 1. Slow payment procedures by owners to main the
Bubshait and Cunningham, contractors which cause delay of payment by
1998; Kartam and Kartam, 2001; main contractor to suppliers and subcontractors

Al-Tabtabai, 2002; Koushki et 2. Shortage of skilled manpower and productivity

al., 2005) fluctuation due to summer and Ramadan

3. Shortage of construction materials and delay of
materials supply
4. Changes in design driven by owners or due to
defect design
5. Excessive bureaucracy in the owner
administration
6. Low competency of subcontractors or suppliers
7. Owner’s lack of experience in the construction
business
8. Improper planning and scheduling of the project
by the contractor or subcontractors
9. Inflation and sudden price changes
10. Strict application of quality control program

67
4.3.3. Major Causes of Delay in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
The review of causes of delay in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia includes reviewing ten
studies that were completed in approximately 25 years between 1984 and 2009 as shown in
Table (4.24). These studies included 522 causes of delay that have similar meaning or close
to each other in many cases. The ten studies investigated different types of projects such as
large buildings, infrastructure, housing, utilities projects. Besides, the survey included also
projects owned by private and public sectors. The comprehensive review of these studies
outlined that the design changes initiated by owners during construction phase has negative
impacts on the performance of main and subcontractors. In addition, the delay of contractor’s
progress payments directly affects the main contractor’s cash flow that consequently affects
the main contractor’s ability to fulfil his financial obligations towards his labours, suppliers
or subcontractors. Furthermore, the ineffective planning and management by the main
contractor and his subcontractors appeared as one of the predominant causes of delay in
KSA. It is worth noting that the top ten causes of delay in the Middle East countries are
approximately the same as illustrated in Tables (4.22), (4.23) and (4.24).

Table ‎4.24: Top Ten Causes of Delay in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Research Top 10 Causes of Delay

(AI - Mudlej, 1984; 1. Design changes and change orders during
construction phase
Awawdeh, 1985; AI Hazmi,
2. Delay of contractor payments
1987; Assaf et al., 1995; Al- 3. Ineffective planning and scheduling of the project
by the contractor and subcontractors
Ghafly, 1995; Al-Khalil and
4. Shortage of manpower(skilled& unskilled labours)
Al-Ghafly, 1999; Asif, 5. Slow decision making process and excessive
bureaucracy by owners’
2003; Falqi, 2004; Assaf
6. Lack of coordination and communications among
and Al-Hejji, 2006; Al- various parties involved in the project.
7. Shortage of construction materials in market
Kharashi and Skitmore,
8. Unforeseen ground condition (type of soil, utility
2009) lines, water table)
9. Difficulties in obtaining work permits
10. Government tendering system and selecting the
lowest bid

4.3.4. Major Causes of Delay in the Middle East

The review of causes of delay in the Middle East countries includes eleven studies in five
countries (UAE, Jordan, Palestine, Libya and Lebanon). Meanwhile, Egypt, KSA and Kuwait

68
are reviewed separately. The review of the five countries included 416 causes of delay with
similar meaning or even close to each other. By filtering the highest severity and impact of
causes of delay in each research, then in each country, then focus on the most predominant
causes of delay to extract the most significant causes that are finally summarized in Table
(4.25).
The overall review of these five countries outlined that the shortage of manpower,
shortage of equipment, shortage of materials, delay of preparation and approval of drawings,
change orders during construction, and lack of planning and management are the most
significant of delay in the Middle East as shown in Table (4.25).

Table ‎4.25: Top Ten Causes of Delay in the Middle East Countries

Country Research Top 10 Causes of Delay

UAE (Faridi and El-Sayegh, 2006; 1. Shortage of manpower and equipment
El-Sayegh, 2008; Motaleb 2. Delay of preparation and approval of drawings
and Kishk, 2010)
3. Changing design by owners during construction
4. Improper planning and scheduling of the project by
Jordan (Al-Momani, 2000; Odeh and
Battaineh, 2002; Abu the contractor or subcontractors
Hammad et al., 2008) 5. Delay of main contractors’ progress payments by
owners, then delay of subcontractors’ and suppliers’
(Al-Najjar, 2008; Enshassi progress payments by main contractor
Palestine and Abu Mosa, 2008;
6. Owners’ unreasonably imposed tight schedule
Enshassi et al., 2009)
7. Late supply and delivery of materials
8. Low competency of subcontractors or Suppliers
Libya Tumi et al.(2009)
9. Awarding the project to unqualified consultant or
Lebanon Mezher and Tawil (1998) contractor
10. Poor site management and supervision

On the other hand, El-Sayegh (2008) found that 55% of the risk shared between the
owner and contractor, while 38% of the risk is the contractors own risks. In addition,
Al-Momani (2000) studied the performance of construction projects in Jordan and found that
among 130 projects there was a delay in 106 projects (81.5%).

69
4.3.5. Major Causes of Delay in Africa
The review of causes of delay in Africa includes nine studies in five countries (Nigeria,
Ghana, South Africa, Zambia, and Uganda). The review of the five countries included 157
causes of delay with similar meaning or even close to each other. By filtering the highest
severity and impact of causes of delay in each research, then in each country, then focus on
the most predominant causes of delay to extract the most significant causes that are finally
summarized in Table (4.26).
The overall review of these five countries outlined that the changes in design during the
construction stage, shortage of manpower, shortage of equipment, shortage of materials,
improper planning, scheduling and budgeting, delay contractors’ progress payments, and
inflation, high insurance and high interest rates are the most significant of delay in the Africa
as shown in Table (4.26).

Table ‎4.26: Top Ten Causes of Delay in Africa

Country Research Top 10 Causes of Delay

Nigeria (Ogwueleka, 2001; Aibinu and 1. Changing the design by the owners during the
Jagboro, 2002; Omoregie and construction
Radford, 2006; Aibinu, 2008; 2. Shortage of manpower / equipment and poor
Olupolola et al., 2010) productivity
3. Improper planning, scheduling, and budgeting
Ghana Fugar and Agyakwah-Baah of the project by the contractor or the
(2010) subcontractors
4. Delay of main contractors’ progress payments
South Okumbe and Verster (2008) by the owners, then delay of subcontractors’
Africa and suppliers’ progress payments by the main
contractor
Zambia Kaliba et al. (2009) 5. Inflation, high insurance and high interest
rates
Uganda Apolot et al.(2010) 6. Late fabrication and delivery of materials
7. Poor site management and supervision
8. Environmental sever effects
9. Strikes
10. Poor contract management

4.3.6. Major Causes of Delay in Asia

The review of causes of delay in Asia includes eleven studies in seven countries
(Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran, Vietnam, China, Hong Kong, and Korea). The review of
the seven countries included 20studies and 526 causes of delay with similar meaning or even
close to each other. By filtering the highest severity and impact of causes of delay in each

70
research, then in each country, then focus on the most predominant causes of delay to extract
the most significant causes as summarized in Table (4.27).
The overall review of these seven countries outlined that the changes in design during the
construction stage, poor site management, shortage of equipment, shortage of materials,
ineffective planning, scheduling, delay contractors’ progress payments, inflation, and price
fluctuation are the most significant causes of delay in the Asia as shown in Table (4.27).

Table ‎4.27: Top Ten Causes of Delay in the Asia

Country Research Top 10 Causes of Delay

Malaysia (Sambasivan and Soon, 2007; 1. Changing the design by the owners during the
bin Yusof et al., 2007; Abdullah
et al., 2010; Wei, 2010) construction
(Alwi et al., 2002; Alwi and 2. Improper planning, and scheduling
Indonesia Hampson, 2003; Soehodho et
al., 2003; Wiguna and Scott, 3. Poor site management and supervision
2005b; Wiguna, 2005a; Majid, 4. Inflation, and price fluctuation
2006)
5. Delay of main contractors’ progress payments
Pakistan (Shaikh et al., 2010; Haseeb et
al., 2011) by the owners
(Afshari et al., 2011; 6. Shortage of materials and late delivery
Iran
Mahdavinejad and Molaee,
2011; Pourrostam and Ismail, 7. Poor contract management
2011) 8. Incompetence from the designers and the
Vietnam (Le-Hoai et al., 2008; Long, contractors
2004)
9. Unforeseen site conditions
China Fang et al. (2004)
10. Delays due to the nominated subcontractors
Hong Kong Chan and Kumaraswamy
(1997)
Korea
Acharya et al. (2006)

4.3.7. Major Causes of Delay in Europe and North America

In this review, we considered two countries in Europe (the United Kingdom and
Portugal) and one in North America (United States of America) to represent developed
countries. The review of the three countries included four studies that investigated235 causes
of delay with similar definition or even close to each other. The overall review for the three
countries outlined that the severe weather, difficulties in getting licenses and permits, the
design changes by owners, the unrealistic contract duration, and the slow decision making by

71
owner’s organisation are the most significant causes of delay in Europe and North America as
shown in Table (4.28).

Table ‎4.28: Top Ten Causes of Delay in Europe and North America

Country Research Top 10 Causes of Delay

UK Falqi(2004) 1. Severe weather conditions on the job site
2. Difficulties in obtaining licenses and permits from
authorities
Portugal (Couto & Teixeira, 2007; 3. Changing design by owners during construction
Couto, 2009) 4. Unrealistic contract duration
5. Slow decision making by the owner’s organisation
USA Ahmed et al. (2002) 6. Deficient planning, activity/material/labour and
equipment management and control
7. Shortage of manpower (skilled, semi-skilled, unskilled
labour) Shortage of materials and late delivery
8. Delayed approval on drawings
9. Incomplete projects, ambiguities, errors, omissions,
inadequate details, details inconsistent throughout
special teams, inadequate design, etc.
10. Interference by the owner in the construction operations

4.4. Comparison of Causes of Delay

As discussed earlier in section 4.2, the causes of delay have been elaborately
investigated, grouped, and analysed in different countries for different types of projects. In
the current study, 62studies have been compiled, reviewed and presented in a new format that
help in understanding the relationship between the investigated risk and their impact on
construction projects performance. The published risks are then grouped in eleven new
proposed categories to facilitate the monitoring and comparing the risks’ relative importance
in each country, or area. The new proposed categories include:
1. Design and drawings’ approval – related
2. Construction – related
3. Contract – related
4. Suppliers and subcontractors – related
5. Financial and Economical – related
6. Government and regulation – related
7. Labour and equipment – related
8. Management, planning, and scheduling – related
9. Materials – related

72
 10. Site – related; and
11. Force Majeure – related.
The included causes of delay in our study are compiled from23 countries assembled in
five continents or areas (the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Europe, and North America). The
included countries in our review represent both developing and developed countries.
Moreover, the causes of delay are grouped and investigated based on the assessment of the
major stockholders in construction projects such as owners, consultants and contractors.
Furthermore, the investigated causes of delay considered the different nature, types and
conditions of projects such as public / private projects, or infrastructure / buildings projects.
The risk importance indices are calculated according to Equation (4.1) developed by
Guo(2004).

Risk Importance Index (RII) = Probability × Severity ………………………....(‎4.1)

Then, we applied normalization to each research as expressed by Equation (4.2) to get

relative risk’s index (RRI) value for each risk importance factor (RII) included in the same
research. Consequently, the summation of all normalized risk factors for one research will
equal to unity.
Then the relative risks will be calculated in each country or each area by dividing each
risk index by the summation of all risks in the relevant country or area by applying same
manner for Equation (4.2).

RII
Relative Risk Index (RRI) = …………………….…………………….(‎4.2)
∑RII

In order to compare between causes of delay categories by area or continent, normalizing

causes of delay for each continent or area should be applied according to Equation (4.2) to
make the summation of all causes of delay equals unity for each continent. The review
included Africa, Asia, the Middle East Area, Europe and North America.

4.4.1. Comparison of Causes of Delay Categories and Responsibilities in

Africa
The review of nine studies in five African countries shows that the causes of delay
grouped under management, planning and scheduling category represents the most significant
category as illustrated in Figure (4.1). The causes of delay related to management, planning,
scheduling represent about 29 % of all causes of delay in Africa. The second significant

73
category includes the causes of delay related to labour and equipment. The labour and
equipment related causes of delay represent 12% of the all causes of delay. Therefore, the
summation of causes of delay related to management, manpower represents about 41% of all
causes of delay in Africa.
On the other hand, classifying causes of delay according to responsibility shows that the
contractors are responsible for cause of delay by about 38% of all causes of delay in Africa as
shown in Figure (4.2). In addition, the second party responsible for the delay is the owner.
The owner responsibility represents about 26% of all causes of delay in Africa. It is worth
noting that the consultant is the lowest responsible for the delay in Africa with 15% of all
causes of delay.
35%

30% 29.0%

25%

20%

15% 12.3%
10.3% 9.5%
10% 8.2% 7.8% 7.0%
5.9%
4.8% 4.2%
5%

0%

Figure ‎4.1: Comparison among All Categories for Causes of Delay in Africa – Average
of Nine Studies

74
 40% 38%

35%

30%
26%
25%
20%
20%
15%
15%

10%

5%

0%
Contractor Owner External Consultant

Figure ‎4.2: Comparison among Responsibilities for Causes of Delay in Africa - Average
of Nine Studies

4.4.2. Comparison of Causes of Delay Categories and Responsibilities in

Asia
The review of nine teen studies in seven Asian countries shows that the causes of delay
grouped under management, planning and scheduling category is the most significant
category as illustrated in Figure (4.3). The causes of delay related to management, planning,
scheduling represent about 31 % of all causes of delay in Asia. The second significant
category includes the causes of delay related to labour and equipment. The labour and
equipment related causes of delay represent 13% of the all causes of delay. Therefore, the
summation of causes of delay related to management, manpower represents about 44% of all
causes of delay in Asia. Whilst, the lowest category represents the force majeure related
causes of delay.
On the other hand, classifying causes of delay according to responsibility shows that the
contractors are responsible for cause of delay by about 51% of all causes of delay in Asia as
shown in Figure (4.4). In addition, the second party responsible for the delay is the owner.
The owner responsibility represents about 22% of all causes of delay in Asia. It is worth
noting that the consultant is also the lowest responsible for the delay in Asia with 13% of all
causes of delay.

75
 35%
31.0%
30%

25%

20%

15% 13.3%
11.2% 11.2%
10%
6.4% 6.3% 6.2%
5.2% 4.9% 4.2%
5%
0.0%
0%

Figure ‎4.3: Comparison among All Categories for Causes of Delay in Asia - Average of
Nineteen Studies

60%

51%
50%

40%

30%
22%
20%
14% 13%

10%

0%
Contractor Owner External Consultant

Figure ‎4.4: Comparison among Responsibilities for Causes of Delay in Asia -Average of
Nineteen Studies

76
4.4.3. Comparison of Causes of Delay Categories and Responsibilities in
Europe
The review of two studies in two European countries shows that the causes of delay
grouped under management, planning and scheduling category is the most significant
category as illustrated in Figure (4.5). The causes of delay related to management, planning,
scheduling represent about 49 % of all causes of delay in Europe. Whilst, the second rank of
significance is sharing between three categories as shown in Figure (4.5). The second rank
includes construction, design drawings - approvals, and labour and equipment categories.
Each category of these three categories represents approximately 8% of all delays in Europe.
Whilst, the lowest category represents causes of delay under suppliers and subcontractors
category with only 2% of all causes of delay in Europe as manifested by Figure (4.5).
On the other hand, classifying causes of delay according to responsibility shows that the
contractors are responsible for cause of delay by about 42% of all causes of delay in Europe
as shown in Figure (4.6). In addition, the second party responsible for the delay is the owner.
The owner responsibility represents about 27% of all causes of delay in Europe. It is worth
noting that the consultant and external parties are also the lowest responsible for the delay in
Europe with 15% for each as illustrated in Figure (4.6).

Europe
60%
49.0%
50%

40%

30%

20%
8.2% 8.0% 7.8% 7.0%
10% 5.6% 5.3% 4.6% 2.5% 1.9%
0%

Figure ‎4.5: Comparison among All Categories for Causes of Delay in Europe - Average
of Two Studies

77
 45% 42%
40%

35%

30% 27%
25%

20%
15% 15%
15%

10%

5%

0%
Contractor Owner Consultant External

Figure ‎4.6: Comparison among Responsibilities for Causes of Delay in Europe -

Average of Two Studies

4.4.4. Comparison of Causes of Delay Categories and Responsibilities in

North America
The review of North American countries includes only one research in the USA. The
review of causes of delay in the USA shows that the causes of delay grouped under
management, planning and scheduling category is the highest category as illustrated in Figure
(4.7). The causes of delay related to management, planning, scheduling represent about 22 %
of all causes of delay in the USA. It is worth noting that, comparing the category of
management, planning, and scheduling in all countries shows that the USA is the lowest
among all countries. In addition, the second significant category is due to governmental and
regulation related causes of delay that represents 20% of all causes of delay in the USA as
shown in Figure (4.7). Moreover, the lowest category represents causes of delay under site
conditions category with about 2% of all causes of delay in the USA as manifested by Figure
(4.7). Furthermore, the causes of delay under force majeure related category represent about
8% of all causes of delay in the USA.
On the other hand, classifying causes of delay according to responsibility shows that the
external parties are responsible for cause of delay by about 33% of all causes of delay in the

78
USA as shown in Figure (4.8). The external-related causes of delay appeared the most
significant in the USA due to causes of delay under force majeure category. Where, the
causes of delay related to force majeure category are the highest in all included countries in
our review. In addition, the second party responsible for the delay is the contractor. The
contractor’s responsibility represents about 32% of all causes of delay in the USA. It is worth
noting that the lowest responsible for delay in the USA is the owner with 15% of all causes of
delay as illustrated in Figure (4.8).

N. America
25%
21.8%
20.3%
20% 17.8%

15%
11.5%
10% 7.5% 7.4% 6.6%
5% 2.9% 2.3% 1.9%
0%

Figure ‎4.7: Comparison amongAll Categories for Causes of Delay in the USA

40%

35% 33% 32%

30%

25%
19%
20%
15%
15%

10%

5%

0%
External Contractor Consultant Owner

Figure ‎4.8: Comparison amongResponsibilities for Causes of Delay in the USA

79
4.4.5. Comparison of Causes of Delay Categories and Responsibilities in the
Middle East
The review for the Middle East countries includes 31studies in 8 countries. The review
of causes of delay in the Middle East countries shows that the causes of delay grouped under
management, planning and scheduling category is the highest category as illustrated in Figure
(4.9). The causes of delay related to management, planning, scheduling represent about 36 %
of all causes of delay in the Middle East countries. While, the second significant category is
sharing between contract related and construction related categories as shown in Figure (4.9).
Moreover, the lowest categories represent causes of delay under force majeure related and
materials related categories with about 3 and 2% respectively of all causes of delay in the
Middle East countries as manifested by Figure (4.9).
On the other hand, classifying causes of delay according to responsibility shows that the
contractor is the prime responsible for causes of delay by about 45% of all causes of delay in
the Middle East countries as shown in Figure (4.10). Whilst, the second party responsible for
the delay is the owner by about24% of all causes of delay in the Middle East countries.
Furthermore, the lowest responsible for the delay in the Middle East countries is the
consultant with only 11% of all causes of delay as illustrated in Figure (4.10).

40% 36.2%
Middle East
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
9.3% 9.3% 8.2%
10% 7.5% 7.5% 6.2% 5.9% 5.3%
5% 2.9% 1.8%
0%

Figure ‎4.9: Comparison amongAll Categories for Causes of Delay in the Middle East
Countries - Average of 31 Studies

80
 50%
45%
45%
40%
35%
30%
24%
25%
20%
20%
15% 11%
10%
5%
0%
Contractor Owner External Consultant

Figure ‎4.10: Comparison among Responsibilities for Causes of Delay in the Middle East
Countries - Average of 31 Studies

A deep investigation of cause of delay in the Egypt, Kuwait and Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia show that the category of management, planning and scheduling related causes of
delay remains the most significant category in Egypt and KSA as manifested in Figure (4.11).
While, the category of suppliers and subcontractors related causes of delay is the most
significant in Kuwait as illustrated in Figure (4.11).
It is worth noting that the lowest significant category in KSA is the suppliers and
subcontractors related category, since KSA depends mostly on local materials. Nevertheless,
the suppliers and subcontractors category is the most significant category in Kuwait. This is
owed to that most of the construction materials are imported from abroad and hence need
a special coordination between numerous parties such as the owner, the main contractor, the
subcontractors and suppliers. The second significant category in Kuwait is the management,
planning, and scheduling related category that represent about 27% of all causes of delay as
shown in Figure (4.11).
On the other hand the analysis of the responsible party for delay in Egypt, KSA, and
Kuwait show that the contractor has the highest responsibility for the delay in the three
countries as shown in Figure (4.11). In addition, the contractor’s responsibility about the
delay in Kuwait is the highest among the three countries.

81
 It is worth noting that, the owner is the second responsible for the delay in the three
countries. In addition, the owner’s responsibility for the delay in KSA is the highest in the
three countries as shown in Figure (4.11).

40% 35.6%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15% 10.3% 9.7% 8.5%
10% 7.1% 6.4% 6.2% 6.1% 5.3% 3.7%
5% 1.2%
0%
Management, Contract Construction Design & Financial & Labour & Site Suppliers & Government & Force Majeure Materials
Planning & Drawings Economical Equipment Sub Regulation
Scheduling Approval Related Contractors

a) Egypt

50% 44.6%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15% 9.7% 9.6% 9.4%
10% 6.1% 6.0% 5.4% 4.0% 3.5% 1.7%
5%
0%
Management, Labour & Financial & Construction Design & Government & Site Contract Materials Suppliers & Sub
Planning & Equipment Economical Drawings Regulation Contractors
Scheduling Related Approval

b) KSA
50% 44.4%
45%
40%
35%
30% 27.3%
25%
20%
15% 10.5%
10% 4.8% 4.4%
5% 2.2% 2.1% 1.8% 1.4% 1.0%
0%
Suppliers & Management, Contract Labour & Design & Government Construction Materials Financial & Site
Sub Planning & Equipment Drawings & Regulation Economical
Contractors Scheduling Approval Related

c) Kuwait
Figure ‎4.11: Comparison among All Categories for Causes of Delay in the Middle East
Countries: a) Egypt, b) KSA, and c) Kuwait

82
 50%
45%
45%
40%
35%
30%
23%
25% 21%
20%
15% 11%
10%
5%
0%
Contractor Owner External Consultant

a) Egypt
50% 47%
45%
40%
35%
30% 27%
25%
20%
14% 12%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Contractor Owner External Consultant

b) KSA
70% 67%

60%

50%

40%

30%
18%
20%
11%
10% 4%
0%
Contractor Owner Consultant External

a) Kuwait
Figure ‎4.12: Comparison among Responsibilities for Causes of Delay in the Middle East
Countries: a) Egypt, b) KSA, and c) Kuwait

83
4.5. Quantitative Analysis of Activities’ Delay in The Middle East
Investigating construction delays and their potential impacts is required to assess the
reliable time for project’s overall duration. This allows contractors to prepare their
construction strategy and methodology properly and precisely. Obtaining the statistical
distribution of activity’s actual durations reveals the ambiguity relevant to the expected
behaviour of the activities and consequently the project’s overall duration. With such
a manner, some modifications could be applied to the contract documents in order to reduce
the disputes that may occur among the involved parties in any construction project.
An analytical approach is carried out on activities included in real construction projects
in the Middle East countries. The statistical analysis is carried out on projects in Egypt,
Kuwait, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar and Oman.
The study included twenty distinct projects including most widespread types of construction
projects for both public and private sector projects. Besides, the analysis included small and
large projects. In addition, the projects included in the analysis represent different types of
construction projects such as high rise buildings, commercial malls, hotels, stadiums, banks,
administration, hospital, residential, infrastructure and highway projects. The analysis
included a large number of various activities that exceeded 125,000 activities, including
engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) activities.
The analysis considered delayed activities with respect to different cases such as planned
early start (ES), planned early finish (EF), planned late start (LS), and planned late finish
(LF). In addition, the analysis considered the duration overrun when the activities have actual
durations greater than planned estimated durations. The analysis was implemented on each
Construction Specifications Institute CSI division all projects.
Table (4.29) shows that the number of activities for the divisions (03), (09), (15), and
(16) represents at least 80% of the total number of all activities. Besides, the occurred delay
in these four divisions is recognized as a significant delay. Where, the delay in these four
divisions constitutes at least 75% of the total delayed activities in each case with respect to
planned early start, planned late start, planned early finish, planned late finish, and estimated
durations. Furthermore, it is clearly observed that the division with the maximum percentages
of duration overruns are (04), (08), and (10). Where, the divisions (04), (08), and (10) have
duration overrun of approximately 81.4%, 74.27% and 78.95% of their total number of
activities, respectively. Consequently, the estimation of activity duration for these divisions
need a careful attention and should be considerably computed.

84
 On the other hand, comparing the ratio of delayed activities with respect to the total
activities number manifests that:
 about 68% are delayed after their planned early start dates,
 about 29.7% are delayed behind their planned late start dates,
 about 79% are delayed after their planned early finish dates,
 about40.9% are delayed behind their planned late finish dates and consequently cause
the delay of the whole project, and
 about 65.7% have actual durations more than the planned estimated durations as
illustrated in Figure (4.13).
Therefore, about 65.7% of all activities have time overrun, while only 40.9% of all
activities may cause delay to the overall project’s completion date. The activities that have
time overrun will be investigated to study the impact of different risks on the performance of
construction projects’ activities. As a general note: the numbers of delayed construction
activities are greater than those for engineering - procurement activities with respect to the
same case of delay as shown in Figure (4.13). The most influential element is the delay
behind planned late finish dates where they directly influence the projects’ planned
completion dates.

85
 Construction
Engineering

79.13%
90%

75.07%
80% 68.02%

65.74%
70% 64.07%

54.36%
60%

40.89%
50%
29.71%
40%

24.94%
30%
16.76%

20%

10%

0%
(1) Early Start (2) Late Start (3) Early Finish (4) Late Finish (5) Duration

Figure ‎4.13: The Delayed Activities Percentages for Construction and Engineering -
Procurement Classified by Cases of Delay from Planned Dates: (1) Behind Early Start,
(2) Behind Late Start, (3) Behind Early Finish, (4) Behind Late Finish, and (5) Greater
Than the Estimated Duration

86
Table ‎4.29: Delayed Activities by: (1) Early Start, (2) Late Start, (3) Early Finish, (4) Late Finish, and (5) Increased Duration
Grouped by CSI Divisions for All Projects in the Middle East

No. of Number of delayed activities Percentage of delayed activities to the Total Number of
Activities Each CSI Division
Division (1) (2) (3) (4) (1) Early (2) Late (3) Early (4) Late (5)
(5)
Early Late Early Late Start Start Finish Finish Duration
Duration
Start Start Finish Finish % % % % %
DIV (02) 4,451 2,539 1,332 3,122 1,864 2,986 57.04 29.93 70.14 41.88 67.09

DIV (03) 24,416 13,660 8,586 16,562 9,587 15,116 55.95 35.17 67.83 39.27 61.91

DIV (04) 2,705 1,588 472 2,215 868 2,202 58.71 17.45 81.89 32.09 81.40

DIV (05) 2,537 1,814 857 2,023 1,021 1,577 71.50 33.78 79.74 40.24 62.16

DIV (06) 293 286 125 291 168 211 97.61 42.66 99.32 57.34 72.01

DIV (07) 4,232 2,831 1,355 3,260 1,654 2,398 66.90 32.02 77.03 39.08 56.66

DIV (08) 4,069 3,407 1,484 3,634 2,188 3,022 83.73 36.47 89.31 53.77 74.27

DIV (09) 12,584 9,853 4,513 11,094 5,538 8,214 78.30 35.86 88.16 44.01 65.27

DIV (10) 1,829 1,410 414 1,724 897 1,444 77.09 22.64 94.26 49.04 78.95

DIV (14) 1,540 1,029 226 1,307 836 1,085 66.82 14.68 84.87 54.29 70.45

DIV (15) 19,187 14,186 4,131 16,013 6,562 13,177 73.94 21.53 83.46 34.20 68.68

DIV (16) 13,282 9,380 3,579 10,865 6,074 8,475 70.62 26.95 81.80 45.73 63.81

Total 91,125 61,983 27,074 72,110 37,257 59,907 68.02 29.71 79.13 40.89 65.74

87
4.6. Recovery Status for the Delayed Activities Behind the
Planned Late Start Dates
Another key study was to define the recovery status of activities delayed with respect to
their planned late start dates and the impact of these activities on the overall delay of the
project. The analysis was implemented on activities that were delayed compared to their
original late start date to find out the response of these activities to the recovery procedures
during the project time as shown in Table (4.30). The analysis accomplished on about 91,125
activities and shows that about 27,369 activities were delayed with respect to their originally
calculated late start dates that represent about 29.7% of all activities. Besides, the delayed
activities in late start can be recovered in one of the following three categories; (1) fully
recovered before their planned late finish dates; (2) not recovered and the amounts of delay
behind planned late start dates were the same as behind planned late finish dates or even
increased; and (3) partially recovered which mean that the amounts of delay behind planned
late start dates were less than that behind planned late finish dates.
It is worth noting that only 11.12% of delayed activities in late start can be recovered as
concluded from Table (4.30); however, the activities that are not recovered or partially
recovered represent about 58.4% and 30.48% of the delayed activities behind late start dates
respectively. Consequently, about 17.35% of all activities are delayed with respect to their
late start dates and can’t be recovered during the original project’s duration, and therefore
cause the delay of the whole project. Accordingly, an enormous attention should be directed
to start activities as early as possible. In addition, it is apparently observed that the divisions
with the greatest unrecoverable delay percentages are the divisions (06), (08), (10), and (14).
Therefore, a special concern should be directed towards these divisions to start at the earliest.

88
 Table ‎4.30: Number of Delayed Activities behind Late Start Dates and Their Recovery Status

No. of Activities (No. of Delayed Percentage From Delayed Late Start

Late Start/
Fully Not Partially
CSI Delayed Fully Not Partially Total No.)
All Recovered Recovered Recovered
Divisions Late Start Recovered Recovered Recovered
% % % %
Division 02 4,451 1,332 77 813 442 29.93 5.78 61.04 33.18
Division 03 24,416 8,586 1,406 4,478 2,702 35.17 16.38 52.15 31.47
Division 04 2,705 472 42 339 91 17.45 8.90 71.82 19.28
Division 05 2,537 857 50 582 225 33.78 5.83 67.91 26.25
Division 06 293 125 1 101 23 42.66 0.80 80.80 18.40
Division 07 4,232 1,355 153 680 522 32.02 11.29 50.18 38.52
Division 08 4,069 1,484 58 1,150 276 36.47 3.91 77.49 18.60
Division 09 12,584 4,513 364 2,655 1,494 35.86 8.07 58.83 33.10
Division 10 1,829 414 6 322 86 22.64 1.45 77.78 20.77
Division 14 1,540 226 19 175 32 14.68 8.41 77.43 14.16
Division 15 19,187 4,131 459 2,232 1,440 21.53 11.11 54.03 34.86
Division 16 13,282 3,579 375 2,285 919 26.95 10.48 63.84 25.68
TOTAL 91,125 27,074 3,010 15,812 8,252 29.71 11.12 58.40 30.48

89
4.7. Statistics of Activities’ Durations Classified by CSI Divisions
in a Single Project
One of the most important analyses which have been carried out in the current study is
the analysis of similar activities in one project. The studied project is significantly unique, as
it consists of 1271 similar housing buildings in Kuwait state. Each building consists of
ground, first floor and a roof. Each building includes most of civil, mechanical and electrical
activities. The study includes 66 groups of similar activities that make the total activities
under study is approximately 84,000 activities. The statistical properties for each activity
were extracted and grouped according to CSI divisions as summarized in Tabled (4.31) to
(4.35).
The statistical analysis of different divisions of works shows that, the ratios of mean
actual duration to the estimated duration (AER) for division (02 site works) activities range
between 53% and 433% of the estimated durations. In addition, the ratios of maximum
duration to mean actual durations (MAR) for division (02 site works) range from 6 times to
39 times the mean actual duration as illustrated in Table (4.31).
The ratios AER for activities of division (03 concrete works) vary between 33% and
453% of the estimated duration as manifested in Table (4.32). Nevertheless, the analysis of
12 distinct activities under division (03 concrete works) show that the ratio MAR for concrete
works ranges between3 and 79 times the mean actual duration (MAD).
Table (4.33) shows the statistical analysis of activities durations under divisions (04)
masonry works, (05) metal works, (07) thermal moisture protection work, and (08) doors and
windows works. It is clearly observed that the ratios AER for activities under divisions (05)
and (07) are always less than 100%. However, the ratios MAR range between 6 and 80 times
the MAD values.
The ratios AER for division (09) activities included in Table (4.34), show that there is
a great variability between estimated durations and mean actual durations. The ratios AER
range from 21% to 433% of the estimated durations. While, the ratios MAR range between 4
and 38 time the MAD values.

90
 Table ‎4.31: Statistics of Division (02): Site Works Activities

Std. AER Std/MAD Percentiles

ID Activity Description N ED MAD Min Max MER MAR
Dev % % 25 50 75 80 85 90 95
D01 Excavation up to FDL 1,271 9 39 46 433 119 1 7 17 54 72 85 106 130 268 30 7
D06 Backfill to bottom of ground beams 1,271 15 42 37 280 89 2 19 29 51 57 70 85 131 270 18 6
D10 Backfill to slab on grade level 1,271 15 8 19 53 243 1 2 3 6 8 9 13 21 309 21 39
D19 Backfill to bottom of ground beams 1,271 11 42 37 382 89 2 19 29 51 57 70 85 131 270 25 6
D23 Backfill to slab on grade 1,253 11 8 20 73 245 1 2 3 6 8 9 13 21 309 28 39

ED = Estimated Duration, MAD = Mean Actual Duration, AER = (Mean Actual Duration / Estimated Duration) Ratio, Std. Dev. = Standard Deviation, Min = Minimum,
Max= Maximum, MER = (Maximum / Estimated) Duration Ratio, and MAR = (Maximum / Mean Actual Duration) Ratio

Table ‎4.32: Statistics of Division (03): Concrete Works Activities

ID Activity Description N ED MAD Std. AER Std/MAD Min Percentiles Max MER MAR
Dev % % 25 50 75 80 85 90 95
D02 Blinding for foundation 1,271 9 10 16 111 160 1 2 4 10 14 19 24 33 311 35 31
D03 Isolated footings 1,271 9 8 13 89 167 1 3 5 9 11 14 17 25 275 31 34
D08 Casting of ground beams 1,271 15 11 15 73 136 1 4 7 14 16 18 21 32 315 21 29
D11 Casting of slab on grade 1,271 15 5 8 33 159 1 1 2 4 6 8 11 18 77 5 15
D12 Columns & Slab for G.F 1,271 25 24 16 96 66 1 12 20 31 33 37 42 54 116 5 5
D13 Columns & Slab/ 1st Floor 1,271 29 21 14 72 69 1 11 17 26 29 32 38 48 104 4 5
D16 Isolated footings/Boundary Wall 1,271 7 8 13 114 167 1 3 5 9 11 14 17 25 275 39 34
D17 Column necks/Boundary Wall 1,271 7 10 16 143 155 1 3 5 10 13 16 23 37 132 19 13
D20 Blinding for GB/Boundary Wall 1,271 11 11 21 100 187 1 2 4 11 15 22 29 42 308 28 28
D21 Ground Beams/Boundary Wall 1,271 11 11 15 100 136 1 4 7 14 16 18 21 32 315 29 29
D24 Columns for Boundary walls 1,054 30 136 95 453 70 1 57 131 195 211 238 277 322 386 13 3
D25 Slab on grade / Boundary Wall 1,271 11 5 18 45 350 1 1 2 4 6 8 11 18 393 36 79

91
Table ‎4.33: Statistics of Divisions (04): Masonry Works Activities, (05): Metal Works Activities, (07): Thermal and Moisture Protection
Activities, and (08): Doors and Windows Activities

Percentiles
Std/
Division ID Std. AER Max MER MAR
Activity Description N ED MAD
%
MAD Min
Dev % 25 50 75 80 85 90 95

Block work (cement & light weight

DIV 04 D42 1,226 48 74 54 154 73 5 37 57 92 108 127 150 191 348 7 5
Block)

DIV 05 D58 Fixing of metal works (hand rail ladder) 1,023 47 43 79 91 184 1 2 3 34 76 120 181 218 372 8 9

DIV 05 D60 Fixing of marble thresholds 891 47 8 21 17 264 1 2 3 5 7 9 16 33 200 4 25

DIV 05 D66 Fixing of steel gates for Boundary walls 905 14 7 17 50 241 1 1 2 4 4 5 7 44 208 15 30

DIV 07 D05 Bituminous paint to surfaces 1,271 9 5 16 56 325 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 275 31 55

DIV 07 D09 Bituminous paint for ground Beams 1,271 15 4 13 27 321 1 1 2 4 4 5 5 7 319 21 80
DIV 07 D18 Bituminous paint /Boundary Wall 1,271 7 5 16 71 325 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 275 39 55
DIV 07 D22 Bituminous for GB / Boundary Wall 1,268 11 4 13 36 322 1 1 2 4 4 5 5 7 319 29 80

DIV 07 D50 Roof treatment works 932 47 43 46 91 107 1 17 26 46 61 82 109 161 246 5 6
DIV 07 D51 WP for wet areas 923 47 46 49 98 107 1 14 27 56 67 95 124 167 265 6 6

Frames/sub-frames for doors &

DIV 08 D43 1,166 29 14 32 48 232 1 2 5 11 14 18 26 56 309 11 22
windows

DIV 08 D57 Fixing of aluminium doors & windows 671 47 74 56 157 76 2 34 63 99 109 123 147 178 399 8 5
DIV 08 D59 Fixing of aluminium window grills 588 21 46 104 219 226 1 1 3 18 46 100 159 315 637 30 14

DIV 08 D62 Fixing of wooden doors 904 47 42 60 89 142 1 4 19 61 71 82 100 136 655 14 16

92
 Table ‎4.34: Statistics of Division (09): Finishes Works Activities

Percentiles
ID Activity Description Std. AER Std/MAD
N ED MAD Min Max MER MAR
Dev % % 25 50 75 80 85 90 95

D44 Plaster Work for dry areas with curing 1,126 50 75 51 150 68 3 43 61 94 103 117 142 190 332 7 4

D45 Plaster Work for wet areas with curing 1,045 50 21 31 42 147 1 7 14 25 29 35 42 65 372 7 18

Fixing of ceramic tiles for floors with

D46 918 47 17 37 36 220 1 3 5 12 16 22 44 81 597 13 35
skirting

D47 Fixing of marble for stairs & skirting 1,072 34 9 24 26 264 1 2 3 6 8 11 17 32 252 7 28

Fixing marble tiles for entrances with

D48 898 47 13 35 28 271 1 2 3 8 14 24 35 52 390 8 30
skirting

D49 Fixing of marble for exterior steps 831 47 10 28 21 281 1 2 3 5 7 11 22 39 385 8 39

D52 External facade works 1,153 86 49 37 57 76 2 27 40 59 66 74 87 124 342 4 7

D53 Finishing of Boundary wall 1,022 58 65 65 112 100 1 17 40 96 108 126 179 213 461 8 7

D54 Fixing of ceramic tiles for walls/ wet area 982 47 28 43 60 154 1 7 14 30 35 44 63 103 341 7 12

D55 Fixing of ceramic tiles for floors/ wet area 873 47 13 20 28 158 1 3 5 15 20 26 34 46 171 4 13

D56 Interior painting works (putty & 1st coat) 836 47 98 84 209 85 1 30 73 153 169 199 221 276 413 9 4

D63 False ceiling works for wet areas 520 30 130 108 433 83 1 42 89 198 222 245 290 343 470 16 4

D65 Fixing terrazzo tiles for yard 918 14 13 22 93 168 1 4 8 13 15 18 22 36 279 20 21

93
 Table ‎4.35: Statistics of Divisions (15): Mechanical Works Activities and (16): Electrical Works Activities
Divisions

Std/ Percentiles
Std. AER
ID Activity Description N ED MAD MAD Min Max MER MAR
Dev %
% 25 50 75 80 85 90 95

D26 External manhole &GF drainage 1,253 12 21 23 175 110 1 10 15 24 27 30 35 52 210 18 10

D27 First Floor drainage pipes 1,205 10 8 4 80 49 1 5 9 12 12 12 12 14 62 6 8
D28 Install of rain water drainage pipes 1,202 47 9 18 19 203 2 5 9 9 9 10 10 14 591 13 66
D29 Install of water supply pipes 1,057 28 12 33 43 279 3 5 7 10 10 11 14 15 309 11 26
Division (15)

D30 External W.S fittings & accessories 1,054 11 7 4 64 62 2 5 5 10 10 10 11 14 62 6 9

D31 Install of water tank with accessories 880 10 10 6 100 64 1 9 9 14 14 14 14 17 50 5 5
D32 Install of sanitary fixtures 869 6 11 13 183 123 1 5 9 14 14 14 17 19 198 33 18
D33 Fixing of toilet accessories 679 8 15 40 188 267 2 5 10 14 14 14 14 17 463 58 31
D34 Install of water heaters 611 5 12 9 240 73 2 9 9 14 14 14 14 14 73 15 6
D64 Fixing of water tank shed 1,147 23 5 15 22 290 1 1 2 4 5 5 8 23 397 17 79
D35 Elec. pipes & Back Boxes for walls 999 35 74 89 211 120 1 10 45 110 118 135 181 241 701 20 9
D36 Pulling of electrical wiring 915 18 11 18 61 166 1 5 8 11 12 15 21 34 314 17 29
Division (16)

D37 Electrical switches & accessories 605 23 20 32 87 162 1 5 9 11 17 21 81 101 243 11 12

D38 Install of DBs 896 23 11 20 48 179 1 5 8 10 11 11 14 21 175 8 16
D39 Install of intercom system 444 5 14 6 280 43 3 9 12 20 20 20 20 20 22 4 2
D40 Telephone & Low voltage outlets 627 23 19 32 83 169 1 5 9 11 17 21 79 101 243 11 13
D41 Install of T.V system 675 7 20 12 286 59 1 8 25 29 29 29 29 29 118 17 6

94
 The statistical analysis for electro-mechanical works under divisions (15) mechanical
works and (16) electrical works show that the ratios AER for division (15) activities range
between 19% and 240% as shown in Table (4.35). Besides, the ratios AER for division (16)
activities range between 48% and 286%. Nevertheless, the MAR ratios for division (15)
activities vary from 5 to 79 times the MAD values. Meanwhile, the MAR ratios for division
(16) activities range between 2 and 29 times the MAD values.
The maximum durations are further investigated deeply to discover the relationship
between the percentile durations and the maximum duration of each activity. The value (95
Percentile = 130 days) mean that about 95 % of activities have actual duration equal to or less
than 130 days. The ratio (Percentile to Maximum Ratio PMR) represents the relationship
between different percentile durations and the maximum duration for the same activity are
summarized in Table (4.36) and illustrated in Figure (4.14). It is clearly observed that, the
increase rates of the ratios PMR have gradual increase till 85 percentile, and then these rates
suddenly converted to rapid increase as shown in Figure (4.14) and Table (4.36). Therefore,
these excessive increment values of activities' durations (after 85 percentiles) can be
disregarded from the next analyses.
In order to analyse the performance of construction activities and to quantify the impact
of different causes of delay on the activities’ durations, we selected seven activities that
represent different divisions in the project such as follows:
1. (D01 - Excavation up to foundation level (FDL)) to represent division (02) site works,
2. (D14 - Columns & slab for medium roof & parapet) to represent division (03) concrete
works,
3. (D51 –Water Proof (WP) membrane screed & foam conc. for wet areas) to represent
division (07) thermal and moisture protection works,
4. (D57 - Fixing of aluminium doors & windows) to represent division (08) doors and
windows works,
5. (D56 - Interior painting works (putty & 1 st coat)) to represent division (09) finishes
works,
6. (D26 - External manhole & Ground Floor drainage) to represent division (15) mechanical
works, and
7. (D35 - Install of elec. pipes & Back Boxes for walls) to represent division (16) electrical
works.

95
 Table ‎4.36: Relationship between the Actual Durations Percentiles and the Maximum Durations of Activities

Mean (Percentiles / Maximum) %

Division ID ED Maximum (Max / AD)
AD 10 20 25 30 40 50 60 70 75 80 85 90 95
DIV 02 D10 15 8 309 38.6 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 7
DIV 02 D19 11 42 270 6.4 5 6 7 8 9 11 13 16 19 21 26 31 49
DIV 03 D25 11 5 393 78.6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 5
DIV 03 D11 15 5 77 15.4 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 5 5 8 10 14 23
DIV 03 D24 30 136 386 2.8 3 13 15 17 26 34 40 47 51 55 62 72 83
DIV 04 D42 48 74 348 4.7 7 10 11 11 14 16 19 22 26 31 36 43 55
DIV 05 D60 47 8 200 25.0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 8 17
DIV 05 D58 47 43 372 8.7 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 5 9 21 32 49 59
DIV 07 D09 15 4 319 79.8 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
DIV 07 D50 47 43 246 5.7 2 6 7 8 9 11 13 15 19 25 33 44 66
DIV 08 D43 29 14 309 22.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 18
DIV 08 D59 21 46 637 13.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 7 16 25 49
DIV 09 D49 47 10 385 38.5 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 6 10
DIV 09 D53 58 65 461 7.1 1 3 4 5 7 9 12 17 21 23 27 39 46
DIV 09 D63 30 130 470 3.6 6 8 9 10 13 19 32 38 42 47 52 62 73
DIV 15 D28 47 9 591 65.7 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
DIV 15 D34 5 12 73 6.1 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 19 19 19 19 19 19
DIV 15 D31 10 10 50 5.0 10 10 18 18 18 18 20 20 28 28 28 28 34
DIV 16 D36 18 11 314 28.5 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 7 11
DIV 16 D35 35 74 701 9.5 1 1 1 2 3 6 9 14 16 17 19 26 34
DIV 16 D39 5 14 22 38.6 27 36 41 45 45 55 86 91 91 91 91 91 91

96
 120%
D01 Excavation UP TO FDL
D14 Columns & slab for medium roof & parapet
Activity Maximum Duration at Shown Percentiles

100% D51 W.P. membrane screed & foam conc. for wet areas
D57 Fixing of aluminium doors & windows
Abslolute Activity Maximum Duration

D56 Interior painting works (putty & 1st coat)

80% D26 External manhole & Ground Floor drainage
D35 Install of elec. pipes & Back Boxes for walls 67%

60%
48%

40%

25%
20%

14%

0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

Actual Durations Percentiles

Figure ‎4.14: Relationship between the Actual Durations Percentiles (among 1271 Buildings Construction) and the Absolute Maximum
Durations of the Selected Activities

97
 It is found that the ratio of percentile values to maximum values (PMR) ranges between
7% and 49% of the maximum durations for division’s (02) activities. Also, the ratio PMR for
division (03) ranges between 17% and 83% of the maximum durations. In addition, the ratio
PMR ranges between 2% and 66% of the activities maximum durations for division (07) as
illustrated in Table (4.36). Therefore, it can be concluded that the ratio PMR for civil works
ranges between 2% and 83% as shown in Table (4.36).
Moreover, it is found that the ratio PMR for mechanical works division (15) ranges
between 2% and 34% of the maximum durations. In addition, PMR ratio for division (16)
electrical works range between 11% and 91% of the maximum durations as illustrated in
Table (4.36). Therefore, the recorded ratio PMR for electro-mechanical works ranges
between 2% and 91% of the maximum durations as manifested in Table (4.36).

4.8. Quantitative Analysis of Causes of Delay Impact on

Construction Activities of a Single Project
The statistical analysis for activities’ durations in a single project shows that there are
significant duration’s overruns in activities which consequently lead to the delay of the
project and may cause colossal losses for all parties involved in the project. Therefore, there
is an exigent need to discover the major risks that threaten these activities in a quantitative
manner.
For that reason, we selected seven activities where each activity was repeated 1271
times. Each activity represents a distinct CSI division as shown in Table (4.37). The
statistical analysis was extracted for these seven activities in order to understand their
behaviour as summarized in Table (4-.37) and (4.38). It is found that at the values of 70
percentile for actual durations of the seven activities, the time slippage for activities ranges
from 106% to 500% of their relevant estimated duration as illustrated in Table (4.37). In
addition, it is realized that at the 70 percentile, the seven activities have durations greater than
their relevant mean actual duration.

98
 Table ‎4.37: Relationship between the Actual Durations Percentiles and the Estimated
Duration of Activities

(Percentile Maximum Duration / ED) %

Division ID ED
10 20 25 30 40 50 60 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

DIV 02 D01 9 44 67 78 100 133 189 333 500 600 800 944 1178 1444 2978

DIV 03 D14 10 70 90 110 120 160 190 260 375 480 560 630 800 1000 2440

DIV 07 D51 47 13 26 30 32 45 57 74 106 119 143 202 263 355 564

DIV 08 D57 47 37 64 72 87 109 134 160 194 211 232 262 313 379 849

DIV 09 D56 47 26 52 64 79 113 154 213 285 326 360 424 470 588 879

DIV 15 D26 12 50 75 83 92 108 125 150 183 200 225 250 292 436 1750

DIV 16 D35 35 14 26 29 31 60 129 186 283 314 337 386 517 689 2003

Table ‎4.38: Relationship between the Actual Durations Percentiles and the Mean Values
of the Actual Durations of Activities

Mean (Percentile Maximum Duration/ AD) %

Division ID
AD 10 20 25 30 40 50 60 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

DIV 02 D01 39 10 15 18 23 31 44 77 115 138 185 218 272 333 687

DIV 03 D14 33 21 27 33 36 48 58 79 114 145 170 191 242 303 739

DIV 07 D51 46 13 26 30 33 46 59 76 109 122 146 206 269 363 576

DIV 08 D57 74 23 41 46 55 69 85 102 123 134 147 166 199 241 539

DIV 09 D56 98 12 25 31 38 54 74 102 137 156 172 204 226 282 421

DIV 15 D26 21 29 43 48 52 62 71 86 105 114 129 143 167 249 1000

DIV 16 D35 74 7 12 14 15 28 61 88 134 149 159 182 245 326 947

The potential risks in Kuwait were extracted from a research conducted by Al-Tabtabai
(2002) on housing projects as summarized in Table (4.39). The associated risks of the seven
activities were allocated during many interviews with the planning and management teams in
the project. The contractor’s planning and management teams in the project allocated risks
percentages according the risks contribution in the delay for each activity in each building as
shown in Table (4.40). Then we calculated the contribution of the risk in the delay for each
activity in each building as illustrated in Table (4.40). The summation of all risks contribution
percentages for an activity’s delay should equal to 100% as shown in Table (4.40).

99
 Table ‎4.39: Causes of Delay Relevant to Housing Projects in Kuwait according to
Contractor’s View (Extracted from (Al-Tabtabai, 2002))

Risk ID Risk Title Index Rank

RSK021 Poor site management and planning 0.870 1
RSK037 Poor scheduling of subcontractors 0.860 2
RSK035 Unrealistic contractor program 0.840 3
RSK020 Late construction mobilization 0.830 4
Lack of Contractors staff training on construction
RSK036 0.820 5
management techniques
RSK015 Slow financial and payment procedures 0.810 6
Lack of planning & control on the side of the
RSK034 0.800 7
subcontractors
RSK019 Miss-interpretation of drawings and specifications 0.760 8
RSK032 Lack of planning and scheduling 0.760 9
RSK040 Poor manpower skills 0.740 10
RSK041 Fluctuating productivity levels 0.740 11
RSK049 Risk allocation mainly on the contractor 0.730 12
RSK001 Slow decision-making process 0.730 13
RSK024 Lack of design drawings coordination 0.720 14
RSK038 Manpower shortage in the Market 0.720 15
RSK014 Limited authority among supervision staff 0.720 16
RSK030 Over-design practice by client 0.720 17
RSK022 Lack of competent specialty subcontractors 0.720 18
RSK006 Inefficient Pre-qualification procedures 0.710 19
RSK016 Apprehensive towards contractor's favouritism 0.700 20
RSK054 Contract type 0.690 21
RSK018 Errors in Construction 0.690 22
RSK023 Contractors shop drawings errors 0.690 23
RSK044 Strict application of quality control program 0.660 24
RSK045 Unavailability of Construction material 0.660 25
RSK031 Design Changes by owner's 0.660 26
RSK005 Inflexibility toward alternatives 0.650 27
RSK043 Difficulty of working during Summer & Ramadan 0.650 28
RSK002 Inefficient Flow of information 0.640 29
RSK042 Manpower disorientation in Kuwait 0.640 30
RSK017 Inadequate contractor experience 0.630 31
RSK033 Lack of professional construction 0.630 32
RSK039 Manpower Visas difficulty 0.630 33
RSK011 Under staffed project personnel 0.610 34

100
RSK004 Uncooperative management 0.600 35
RSK013 Lack of construction management training 0.590 36
RSK009 Poor coordination with regulatory agencies 0.590 37
RSK012 Unfamiliarity with new methods 0.570 38
RSK027 Lack of constructability applications 0.570 39
RSK048 Selection of incompetent sub-contractors 0.570 40
RSK050 Week Contract clauses 0.560 41
RSK053 unrealistic project duration estimate 0.560 42
RSK047 Differing site conditions 0.560 43
RSK051 Small-liquidated damages 0.550 44
RSK026 Inefficient Shop drawings approval 0.530 45
RSK007 Short time extensions for variation orders 0.530 46
RSK025 Design drawings errors 0.520 47
RSK028 Design drawings and specifications do not match 0.500 48
RSK052 Poor contract negotiation 0.500 49
RSK003 Lack of field / project experience 0.500 50
RSK010 Inspection procedures 0.460 51
RSK029 Inaccurate project estimate 0.450 52
RSK046 Testing of construction materials 0.450 53
RSK008 Lack of site attendance control 0.440 54

The quantitative analysis for the amount of delayed days for any risk is calculated according
to Equation

Delay (days) =Risk Contribution Percentage × Activity’s Delay ……….....…. (‎4.3)

Where,

Activity’s Delay = Actual Duration – Estimated Duration…..………..………. (‎4.4)

Then we extracted the statistical properties for risk’s contribution in delay through using
IBM Statistics SPSS Ver. 22 software. The statistical properties of risks contribution of delay
were studied and evaluated as summarized in Table (4.41). As shown in Table (4.41), the
seven selected activities were exposed to only thirteen risks, while the investigation included
fifty four distinct risks as included in (Al-Tabtabai, 2002). The total number of completed
activities in all buildings is 6908 activities as illustrated in Table (4.41).It is found that the
risk “slow financial and payment procedures” has the highest influence on the activities by

101
number as it had influence on about 82% of the total number of the studied activities, as
illustrated in Table (4.41) and Figure (4.15). Then, the lack of planning and scheduling as it
affected about 58% of the total number of the studied activities, as manifested in Table (4.41)
and Figure (4.15). Whilst the lowest effect on the number of activities is observed for
contractor’s shop drawings errors, as illustrated in Table (4.41) and Figure (4.15).
The quantitative analysis of risk showed that the total amount of delays for the seven
activities in all buildings is 168,407 days as illustrated in Table (4.41). It is found that the
highest delay contributions was observed for the lack of planning and scheduling, then for
slow financial and payment procedures, as they contributed by about 27.7% and 23.1% of the
total delay of the seven activities in all buildings dues to the thirteen risks as illustrated in
Table (4.41) and Figure (4.15). It is worth noting that these two risks are included in the top
ten risks evaluated by Al-Tabtabai (2002) as shown in Table (4.42). The summation of these
two risks represents about 51% of the total delay. Therefore, the highest attention should be
directed to reduce or control the delays due to planning and slow payment procedures. In
addition, the lowest contribution in the total delay for the seven activities in all buildings is
observed for the unavailability of construction material as illustrated in Table (4.41) and
Figure (4.16).

102
 Table ‎4.40: Example of Risks Contribution in the Delay’s Amounts and Percentages of One Activity in All Buildings

D01 - Excavation up to FDL &

Risk Contribution in Delay Percentage (%) Risk Contribution in Delay (Days)
Structural Fill (ED = 9 days)

RSK015 - Slow financial and

RSK015 - Slow financial and

RSK032 - Lack of planning

RSK032 - Lack of planning

RSK024 - Lack of design

RSK024 - Lack of design

RSK001 - Slow decision-

RSK001 - Slow decision-

RSK054 - Contract type

RSK054 - Contract type

Activity's Delay (Days)

drawings coordination

drawings coordination
payment procedures

payment procedures
Actual Finish Date
Actual Start Date

Actual Duration

RSK…… ……..

RSK…… ……..
making process

making process
and scheduling

and scheduling
House No.

Total

1 18-Jun-11 13-Jul-11 25 16 31 38 15 15 100 5 6 2 2 0

2 18-Jun-11 13-Jul-11 25 16 31 38 15 15 100 5 6 2 2 0
3 10-Jun-11 13-Jul-11 33 24 13 31 25 31 100 3 8 6 8 0
4 03-Jun-11 13-Jul-11 40 31 13 31 25 31 100 4 10 8 10 0
5 28-May-11 13-Jul-11 46 37 13 31 25 31 100 5 12 9 12 0
6 25-May-11 13-Jul-11 49 40 13 31 25 31 100 5 13 10 13 0
8 03-May-11 28-May-11 25 16 31 38 15 15 100 5 6 2 2 0
9 03-May-11 28-May-11 25 16 31 38 15 15 100 5 6 2 2 0
10 03-May-11 28-May-11 25 16 31 38 15 15 100 5 6 2 2 0

1268 25-Dec-10 06-Jan-11 12 3 31 38 15 15 100 1 1 0 0 0

1269 25-Dec-10 06-Jan-11 12 3 31 38 15 15 100 1 1 0 0 0
1270 27-Dec-10 06-Jan-11 10 1 31 38 15 15 100 0 0 0 0 0
1271 27-Dec-10 06-Jan-11 10 1 31 38 15 15 100 0 0 0 0 0
ED = Estimated Duration (days)

103
 Table ‎4.41: Statistics of Risks Contribution in the Delay of the Selected Seven Activities in a Single Housing Project in Kuwait

Contribution of

Maximum
Affected Activities Percentiles (Percentiles / Maximum) %
Risk Delay Std.
Mean Range
Percentage Sum Percentage Deviation
Number 50 75 80 85 90 95 50 60 70 75 80 85 90 95
% (days) %
RSK001 - Slow decision-making process 1,266 18.3 4,976 3.0 4 6 44 2 6 8 10 13 15 42 5 8 12 14 19 23 30 36

RSK010 - Inspection procedures 3,212 46.5 3,304 2.0 1 5 38 0 2 2 4 6 10 31 1 2 4 5 8 13 21 33

RSK015 - Slow financial and payment procedures 5,663 82.0 38,869 23.1 7 19 287 1 11 14 20 28 41 256 0 1 3 4 6 8 11 16

RSK023 - Contractors shop drawings errors 670 9.7 3,730 2.2 6 11 83 3 11 13 16 20 27 73 5 8 12 14 17 21 27 37

RSK024 - Lack of design drawings coordination 2,500 36.2 14,621 8.7 6 9 65 2 9 11 14 18 24 63 3 5 11 15 18 23 29 39

RSK031 - Design Changes by owner's 835 12.1 15,813 9.4 19 31 158 9 38 47 55 65 79 140 6 14 23 27 33 39 47 56

RSK032 - Lack of planning and scheduling 4,016 58.1 46,574 27.7 12 21 190 2 17 24 30 41 56 172 1 4 7 10 14 18 24 33

RSK037 - Poor scheduling of subcontractors 1,056 15.3 1,690 1.0 2 4 47 1 3 4 5 7 8 43 2 4 6 8 10 12 15 19

RSK038 - Manpower shortage in the Market 1,592 23.0 2,134 1.3 1 12 75 -1 6 8 12 17 26 62 -2 2 6 9 12 18 27 42

RSK039 - Manpower Visas difficulty 2,156 31.2 2,948 1.8 1 10 75 1 4 5 7 11 20 62 1 2 4 6 9 11 17 31

RSK040 - Poor manpower skills 1,904 27.6 8,996 5.3 5 8 66 2 8 10 12 15 20 59 4 7 11 14 16 20 25 34

RSK041 - Fluctuating productivity levels 1,952 28.3 24,820 14.7 13 39 431 2 9 18 37 49 81 410 0 1 2 2 4 9 12 20

RSK045 - Unavailability of Construction material 922 13.3 -69 0.0 0 5 27 -2 1 2 5 8 12 21 -10 -6 1 4 9 22 37 59

All Risks 6,908 100.0 168,407 100.0 24 58 712 6 42 55 75 97 138 666 1 2 4 6 8 11 15 21

104
 0.0
5.0
0.0

10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0

RSK032 - Lack of planning and RSK015 - Slow financial and payment

27.7
82.0

scheduling procedures

RSK015 - Slow financial and payment RSK032 - Lack of planning and

23.1
58.1

procedures scheduling

RSK041 - Fluctuating productivity levels RSK010 - Inspection procedures

14.7
46.5

RSK024 - Lack of design drawings

RSK031 - Design Changes by owner's

9.4
36.2

coordination

RSK024 - Lack of design drawings

RSK039 - Manpower Visas difficulty

8.7
31.2

coordination

RSK041 - Fluctuating productivity

RSK040 - Poor manpower skills

5.3
28.3

levels

RSK001 - Slow decision-making process RSK040 - Poor manpower skills

3.0
27.6

105
RSK023 - Contractors shop drawings RSK038 - Manpower shortage in the

2.2
23.0

errors Market

RSK001 - Slow decision-making

RSK010 - Inspection procedures

2.0
18.3

process

RSK037 - Poor scheduling of

in a Single Housing Project in Kuwait

RSK039 - Manpower Visas difficulty

1.8
15.3

subcontractors

RSK038 - Manpower shortage in the RSK045 - Unavailability of

1.3
13.3

Market Construction material

RSK037 - Poor scheduling of

RSK031 - Design Changes by owner's

1.0
12.1

subcontractors
Figure ‎4.15: Percentage of Affected Number of Activities for each Risk

RSK045 - Unavailability of Construction RSK023 - Contractors shop drawings

9.7

material errors

Figure ‎4.16: Percentage of Risk Contribution of the Total Delay of the Seven Activities
 The comparisons between the delays percentiles due to each risk were concluded as
shown in Table (4.41) and Figure (4.17). It is found that there is gradual increase of the ratio
of delay percentiles to the maximum delay (DPM) relevant to all risks till 95 percentile, and
then a sudden increase occurs after 95 percentile. Therefore, the delay after 95 percentiles can
be considered extreme delays due to extraordinary or unjustified reasons.

120
RSK001 - Slow decision-making process
Ratio of Activity's Delay to Maximum Delay

RSK010 - Inspection procedures

RSK015 - Slow financial and payment procedures
100
RSK023 - Contractors shop drawings errors
RSK024 - Lack of design drawings coordination
All Risks
80

60

40 37

20 21

8
0
40

45

100
50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Percentiles

Figure ‎4.17: Relationship between the Delays Percentiles to the Maximum Delay (DPM)
of the Seven Activities Due to Different Risks

The summation of risks contributions in activities’ delay was calculated for each activity
as illustrated in Table (4.42). It is found that the greatest impact or delay was observed for
Activities: (1) D56 - Interior painting works (putty & 1 st coat); (2) D35 - Install of elec. pipes
&back boxes for walls; and (3) D01 - Excavation up to foundation level (FDL) as the sum of
delays occurred for these three activities in all buildings are 42,651, 38,212, and 37,684 days
respectively that represented 25%, 23% and 22% of all delays.

106
 Table ‎4.42: Risk’s Contribution to the Delay in the Selected Seven Activities in a Single Housing Project in Kuwait

Delays (days)

RSK038 - Manpower shortage in the Market

RSK037 - Poor scheduling of subcontractors
RSK023 - Contractors shop drawings errors

RSK032 - Lack of planning and scheduling

RSK041 - Fluctuating productivity levels

RSK045 - Unavailability of Construction

RSK001 - Slow decision-making process
Activity Description

RSK015 - Slow financial and payment

RSK031 - Design Changes by owner's

Associated Risks

RSK039 - Manpower Visas difficulty

RSK024 - Lack of design drawings
RSK010 - Inspection procedures

RSK040 - Poor manpower skills

All Risks Contribution

coordination
procedures

material
D01 - Excavation UP TO FDL 4,976 7,592 8,128 16,989 37,684

D14 - Columns & slab for medium roof 3,224 6,493 9,256 3,351 5,959 28,284

D51 - WP membrane & screed for wet areas -182 -273 -364 -403 -69 -1,291
st
D56 - Interior painting works (putty & 1 coat) 11,080 15,813 15,758 42,651

D57 - Fixing of aluminium doors & windows 4,418 3,730 4,571 2,498 3,038 18,255

D26 - External manhole & Ground Floor drainage 262 831 1,690 1,829 4,612

D35 - Install of elec. pipes & Back Boxes for walls 15,221 22,991 38,212

All Activities 4,976 3,304 38,869 3,730 14,621 15,813 46,574 1,690 2,134 2,948 8,996 24,820 -69 168,407

107
 The quantitative impact of risks on activities was investigated on different types of work
such as civil works or electro-mechanical works. It is found that out of the thirteen risks only
ten risks affected the civil works as shown in Figure (4.18). Whilst, the electro-mechanical
activities are influenced by only four different risks out of the thirteen risks included in our
investigation as shown in Figure (4.18). In addition, it is found that the lack of planning and
scheduling has an impact of 37% of the total delay relevant to civil works (five activities) in
all buildings. Moreover, the slow financial and payment procedures had contributed to the
delay of civil works by 18%. Hence, the contribution of lack of planning and slow payment is
about 55% of the total delay occurred on the civil works activities (five activities) in all
buildings as shown in Figure (4.18).
On the other hand, it is found that the fluctuation of productivity level had the maximum
influence on the delay of electro-mechanical works. The fluctuation of productivity
contributed the total delays of electrical activities (two activities) in all buildings by
approximately 58% as illustrated in Figure (4.18). Also, it is found that the slow financial and
the payment procedures had the second rank in influencing activities of both electro-
mechanical as well as civil works. However the contribution of slow payment procedures on
electro-mechanical works delay was greater than civil works delay as shown in Figure (4.18).
Consequently, adding more planning and enhancing scheduling techniques, expediting the
payment procedures, and improving the productivity rates can help in controlling and
managing about 65% of the total delays encountered in housing projects in Kuwait as shown
in Figures (4.16), and (4.18).

108
 a)

b)
10%
20%
30%
40%
60%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%

50%
70%
-5%

0%
0%
5%
RSK041 - Fluctuating productivity RSK032 - Lack of planning and
37%

58%
levels scheduling

RSK015 - Slow financial and payment RSK015 - Slow financial and payment

37%
18%
procedures procedures

RSK037 - Poor scheduling of

RSK031 - Design Changes by owner's

4%
13%
subcontractors

RSK024 - Lack of design drawings

RSK010 - Inspection procedures

1%
12%

coordination

RSK032 - Lack of planning and

RSK040 - Poor manpower skills

0%
7%

scheduling

RSK031 - Design Changes by owner's RSK001 - Slow decision-making process

0%
4%

RSK024 - Lack of design drawings RSK023 - Contractors shop drawings

0%
3%

109
coordination errors

RSK040 - Poor manpower skills RSK010 - Inspection procedures

0%
2%

RSK001 - Slow decision-making

RSK039 - Manpower Visas difficulty

0%
2%

process

RSK023 - Contractors shop drawings RSK038 - Manpower shortage in the

0%
2%

errors Market

RSK037 - Poor scheduling of

RSK039 - Manpower Visas difficulty

0%
0%

subcontractors

RSK038 - Manpower shortage in the

RSK041 - Fluctuating productivity levels

0%
0%

Market

RSK045 - Unavailability of RSK045 - Unavailability of Construction

0%
0%

Construction material material

Housing Project in Kuwait: a) Civil Works, and b) Electro-mechanical Works

Figure ‎4.18: Risks Contribution of Delay for the Selected Seven Activities in a Single
 CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS OF ACTIVITIES
DURATIONS PATTERNS

5.1. General
The traditional deterministic scheduling techniques are powerless in front of the
numerous degrees of uncertainty and the high levels of risks that the construction projects
may encounter. In addition, the involved parties in the construction industries might
inevitably be jeopardized to unexpectedly immense losses. Therefore, it is exigent to utilize
new scheduling techniques that consider the uncertainty of construction activities and the
affecting risks on the project’s performance. With the continuous development of more
powerful computers and software, the use of advanced scheduling techniques will become
easier, faster and has greater relevance to construction reality. The advanced scheduling
techniques consider the probabilistic behaviour of construction activities through one of the
wide spread simulation techniques such as Monte Carlo simulation (Cleland, 2004).
Notwithstanding, it was found that the high level of complexity in estimating input
parameters for any simulation techniques is one of the most remarkable obstacles for the
practitioners and projects managers to use simulation systems for scheduling.
In this chapter, we will analyse and evaluate the most appropriate Probability Density
Function (PDF) with the highest confidence levels to represent the activities included in
construction projects. The analysis will be conducted on a variety of distinct real construction
projects in the Middle East Countries. The study includes projects in Egypt, Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates. The review exercise aims to
develop an overall research framework and to prepare an appropriate template for case
studies. The analysis will include different cases according to country, according to type of
works, and the Construction Specification Institute (CSI) master format 1995 classification.

5.2. Scope of Study

The study was carried out in the Middle East countries including Egypt, Kuwait,
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Oman. The study
included twenty distinct projects including most widespread types of construction projects for
both public and private sector projects, and for small and large projects. The projects include

110
High Rise Buildings, Commercial Malls, Hotels, Hospitals, Stadiums, Banks, Administration,
Residential, Infrastructure and Highway Projects as summarized in Table (5.1).

Table ‎5.1: Summary of Studied Projects in the Middle East

Contractua Estimated Number

Contractual Estimated l Duration Budget
# Project Country of
Start Finish
(Days) (USD) Activities
1 TNT-HOS Egypt 16-Dec-1998 17-Jun-2001 915 46,944,591 1,563
2 MOI-JED KSA 1-Mar-2011 17-Feb-2013 720 344,500,000 5,731
3 MSLH KSA 11-Sep-2010 11-Feb-2013 885 44,978,829 7,729
4 Al-Salam Kuwait 18-Sep-2011 3-Feb-2013 505 24,752,000 6,024
5 Avenues Kuwait 15-Oct-2009 31-Mar-2012 899 438,287,200 22,019
6 CBK Kuwait 26-Apr-2008 25-Apr-2011 1,095 392,908,181 4,546
7 CEG-GIRLS Kuwait 21-Jul-2007 20-Nov-2010 1,219 142,022,765 8,583
8 HASAWI Kuwait 1-Aug-2009 31-Dec-2010 518 4,950,400 841
9 KTC Kuwait 12-Mar-2005 31-May-2008 1,177 61,175,816 6,111
10 PIFFS Kuwait 18-Dec-2011 24-Dec-2013 738 35,706,528 5,043
11 PIFSS Kuwait 9-Jan-2011 7-Jan-2013 730 22,950,542 4,505
12 SABAH Kuwait 15-Jun-2010 27-Jun-2013 1,109 469,865,505 20,075
13 SLMH Kuwait 1-Apr-2011 29-Mar-2013 729 27,667,107 2,974
14 STAD Kuwait 14-Sep-2004 12-Dec-2006 820 195,364,244 6,108
15 SUBY Kuwait 3-May-2009 1-May-2012 1,095 146,203,059 1,816
16 TNT Kuwait 25-Jul-2007 1-Apr-2009 617 12,984,270 1,885
17 TVIG Kuwait 4-Jul-2010 1-Jul-2012 729 47,596,395 6,541
Salalah
18 Oman 1-Sep-2008 5-Sep-2010 735 9,156,040 3,870
Complex
Barwa
19 Qatar 2-Feb-2008 12-Sep-2011 1,319 102,315,500 2,856
Avenue
20 TWN-TWR UAE 25-Oct-2009 30-Nov-2012 1,133 76,820,703 7,490
All Middle
16-Dec-1998 24-Dec-2013 17,687 2,647,149,674 126,310
Projects East

The study included a huge amount of various activities that exceeded 125,000 activities,
including engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) activities. The engineering and
procurement activities within the studied projects constitute a portion ranges from 6% to 68%
of relevant number of activities in each project. While, the overall of engineering-
procurement activities represent approximately 17% of the total number of activities in all
projects, as shown in Table (5.2).

111
 Table ‎5.2: Distribution of Activities According to Phase of Work (Construction and
Engineering – Procurement)

No. of Activities Percentage % from Total

Engineering
Construction Total Construction Engineering -
PROJECT -
Procurement Procurement
(A) (B) (C)=(A)+(B) (A)/(C) % (B)/(C) %
Al-Salam 3,249 2,775 6,024 53.9 46
Avenues 18,006 4,013 22,019 81.8 18
CEG-GIRLS 7,010 1,573 8,583 81.7 18
HASAWI 269 572 841 32 68
KTC 4,454 1,657 6,111 72.9 27
MOI-JEDDA 5,119 612 5,731 89.3 11
MSLH 7,057 672 7,729 91.3 9
PIFFS 2,694 2,349 5,043 53.4 47
PIFSS 3,841 664 4,505 85.3 15
SABAH 19,010 1,065 20,075 94.7 5
SLMH 2,617 357 2,974 88 12
STAD 4,783 1,325 6,108 78.3 22
SUBY 1,709 107 1,816 94.1 6
TNT 1,405 480 1,885 74.5 26
CBK 3,957 589 4,546 87 13
TWN-TWR 6,922 568 7,490 92.4 8
Barwa Avenue 2,506 350 2,856 87.7 12
Salalah Complex 3,090 780 3,870 79.8 20
TNT-HOS 1,103 460 1,563 70.6 29
TVIG 5,832 709 6,541 89.2 11
TOTAL 104,633 21,677 126,310 82.8 17.2

5.3. Characteristics of Activities Phase of Construction in All

Projects
The data was statistically analysed in order to deduce the statistical characteristics of
activities durations for different case studies such as studying all activities for all project,
studying CSI divisions for all projects, and studying single project containing activities with a
repetitive nature as illustrated in Figure (5.1).
The analysis of engineering - procurement and construction activities for all projects
manifests that the mean value for actual durations relevant to construction activities
represents at least 7 times the same for the estimated durations; as shown in Table (5.3).
While, the mean value for actual durations relevant to engineering and procurement activities
represents about 3 times the same for originally estimated durations. Consequently, the
average of actual duration for all activities is about 6 times that for the estimated durations.

112
 Table ‎5.3: Mean and Standard Deviation Values for Engineering - Procurement and
Construction Activities for All Projects in the Middle East

Engineering -
Construction
Procurement All Activities
Activities
Activities
Estimat
Estimated Actual Estimated Actual Actual
ed
Number of Readings 17,438 66,546 83,984

Mean (days) 27.32 85.20 12.82 94.12 15.83 92.26

(Mean actual / Mean Estimated) 312% 734% 583%

Std. Deviation (days) 39.69 113.68 15.72 130.27 23.61 127.05

(Std. Deviation actual / Std.

286% 829% 538%
Deviation Estimated)

Coefficient of Variation (COV %) 145% 133% 123% 138% 149% 138%

113
Figure ‎5.1: Case Studies of Evaluating the Best Probability Density Function to Represent Activities in Construction Projects

114
 Following the same analysis for all projects, illustrate that the standard deviation of
engineering - procurement and construction activities actual durations represent about 3 and 8
times the same for the estimated values respectively. In general, the standard deviation for
actual durations represents about 5 times that for estimated durations as illustrated in Table
(5.3). It is worth noting that, the coefficient of variation (COV) for estimated durations in
engineering - procurement activities is higher than construction activities by about 20%.
Whilst, the (COV)of actual durations are approximately equal for both engineering -
procurement and construction activities, as shown in Table (5.3).
The second analysis was conducted on the EPC activities in all projects and included
graphical representation and curve fitting of the estimated and the actual durations. The curve
fitting analysis included four widespread probability distribution functions utilizing
MATLAB 2012b software. The included probability distribution functions are the Normal,
the Lognormal, the Gamma and the Weibull distributions as illustrated in Figures (5.2), (5.3),
and (5.4). The statistical behaviour and curve fitting for the estimated and the actual
construction activities durations in all countries is shown in Figure (5.2). It is clearly
observed that the estimated durations' frequencies are high till 50 days, while the actual
durations are smoothly distributed with gradual declination till 375 days. The utilized curve
fitting in Figure (5.2) and goodness of fit tests as illustrated in Table (5.4) obviously manifest
that the best PDF to represent construction activities is the lognormal distribution then the
gamma distribution. However, utilizing normal distribution fitting shows the lowest level of
confidence.

Table ‎5.4: Chi Square Test Results for Curve Fitting of Construction Projects’
Activities in the Middle East

Case of Analysis Beta Gamma Lognormal Normal Weibull

All Activities - Actual 1,604 734 629 1,990 770
All Activities - Estimated 2,448 282 357 N/A N/A
Construction Activities - Actual N/A 365 251 3,858 516
Construction Activities - Estimated N/A 637 448 N/A N/A
Engineering - Procurement Activities - Actual N/A 604 37 N/A 1,528
Engineering - Procurement Activities - Estimated N/A 1,517 1,008 N/A 4,221

115
a)

b)
Figure ‎5.2: Probability Density Function PDF and Curve Fitting for Construction
Activities Durations for All Projects: a) Estimated Durations, and b) Actual Durations

116
a)

b)
Figure ‎5.3 Probability Density Function PDF and Curve Fitting for Engineering -
Procurement Activities Durations for All Projects: a) Estimated Durations, and
b) Actual Durations

117
a)

b)
Figure ‎5.4: Probability Density Function PDF and Curve Fitting for All Construction
and Engineering - Procurement Activities Durations for All Projects: a) Estimated
Durations, and b) Actual Durations

118
5.4. Analysis of PDF Classified by CSI Divisions for All Projects
The results of analysing PDF for individual CSI division in all projects are summarized
in Table (5.5). The Table shows that the minimum and the maximum increase in mean values
for actual durations are observed for division (03) concrete works and division (16) electrical
works that represent about 3 and 8 times the mean value for estimated durations respectively.
The increment in values of the mean and the standard deviation for actual against estimated
durations are minimum for traditional types of work such as concrete, masonry, moisture and
thermal protection, and finishes works. Nevertheless, the highest increment is realized for
non-traditional types of work such as mechanical, specialties, and electrical works.
The graphical representations for all EPC activities derived for every individual CSI
division in all projects in the studied countries are shown in Figure (5.5), (5.6), (5.7), and
(5.8). The selected divisions include civil works such as division (03) concrete works, and
division (09) finishes works as shown in Figures (5.5) and (5.6) respectively. Besides, the
electro-mechanical works include divisions (15) mechanical works, and (16) electrical works
as in Figures (5.7) and (5.8). As might be expected, it is found that the frequencies of
estimated and actual durations differ from division to division due to difference in
productivity rates and nature of work. As illustrated in Figures (5.5) and (5.6), the frequencies
of estimated durations for the division (03) are high until the duration of approximately 35
days. Besides, the high frequencies of the estimated durations in division (09) extend to
duration of approximately 60 days. However, the frequencies of actual duration in both
divisions are decreasing smoothly and homogeneously up to 400 days.
Generally, the best PDF to represent both estimated and actual durations for civil works
is the lognormal distribution and then the gamma distribution as illustrated in Table (5.6) and
Figures (5.4) and (5.5) as well as the values of Chi square tests as summarized in Table (5.6).
In addition, it is very clear that normal PDF shows the lowest level of confidence when
representing both estimated and actual durations for civil divisions as shown in Table (5.6).

119
 Table ‎5.5: Mean and Standard Deviation Values for Divisions (03), (09), (15), and (16)

Division (09) Division (15) Division (16)

Division (03) Activities
Activities Activities Activities
Estimated Actual Estimated Actual Estimated Actual Estimated Actual
- Number of Readings 21,272 19,200 11,119 10,529 16,937 15,622 10,962 9,531
- Mean (days) 14.64 49.89 17.32 73.38 15.65 117.88 16.35 133.67
- (Mean actual / Mean
341% 424% 753% 818%
estimated)
- Std. Deviation (days) 25.06 74.05 21.60 87.51 25.33 132.02 23.987 144.76
- (Std. Deviation actual /
Std. Deviation
estimated) 295% 405% 521% 604%

Figures (5.7) and (5.8) represent the behaviour of the estimated and the actual durations
for electro-mechanical works as well as the most popular curve fitting for both. It is very
clear in Figures (5.7) and (5.8) that the frequencies of the estimated and the actual durations
are not steady along the whole sample size. However, the actual durations are smoother and
more homogenous. In addition, it is found that the lognormal PDF is the best to describe the
electro-mechanical activities as illustrated in Figure (5.6) and (5.7) as well as the values of
Chi square tests as summarized in Table (5.6). On the other hand, it is apparent that using
normal PDF represents the lowest confidence choice as shown in Table (5.6).

120
Table ‎5.6 Chi Square Test Results for Curve Fitting of CSI Divisions Activities in the
Middle East

Division Beta Gamma Lognormal Normal Weibull

Div. 02 Actual Durations N/A 544 484 677 1,184
Div. 02 Estimated Durations 358 324 222 3,593 2,212
Div. 03 Actual Durations N/A 311 255 N/A 791
Div. 03 Estimated Durations 1,099 805 980 1,460 N/A
Div. 04 Actual Durations 805 83 76 360 1,517
Div. 04 Estimated Durations 367 157 58 N/A 2,243
Div. 05 Actual Durations 1,060 202 214 1,118 232
Div. 05 Estimated Durations 358 324 222 3,593 2,212
Div. 06 Actual Durations N/A 177 114 233 294
Div. 06 Estimated Durations 47 77 37 140 605
Div. 07 Actual Durations N/A 86 78 4,462 220
Div. 07 Estimated Durations 285 288 300 4,173 3,181
Div. 08 Actual Durations N/A 314 239 796 1,157
Div. 08 Estimated Durations N/A 405 384 570 3,038
Div. 09 Actual Durations 771 981 833 N/A N/A
Div. 09 Estimated Durations N/A 840 714 1,026 2,635
Div. 10 Actual Durations N/A 1,197 1,067 386 3,753
Div. 10 Estimated Durations 316 79 91 4,086 719
Div. 14 Actual Durations N/A 43 25 67 94
Div. 14 Estimated Durations 230 137 51 1,419 1,429
Div. 15 Actual Durations N/A 1,574 1,065 2,030 5,365
Div. 15 Estimated Durations N/A 2,084 2,714 N/A 3,325
Div. 16 Actual Durations N/A 2,292 2,100 3,776 8,903
Div. 16 Estimated Durations 7,954 860 874 N/A 5,304

121
a)

b)
Figure ‎5.5: Probability Density Function PDF and Curve Fitting for Division
(03 - Concrete Works) Activities Durations for All Projects: a) Estimated Durations,
and b) Actual Durations

122
a)

b)
Figure ‎5.6: Probability Density Function PDF and Curve Fitting for Division
(09 - Finishes Works) Activities for All Projects: a) Estimated Durations, and b) Actual
Durations

123
a)

b)
Figure ‎5.7: Probability Density Function PDF and Curve Fitting for Division
(15 - Mechanical Works) Activities for All Projects: a) Estimated Durations, and
b) Actual Durations

124
a)

b)
Figure ‎5.8: Probability Density Function PDF and Curve Fitting for Division
(16 - Electrical Works) Activities for All Projects: a) Estimated Durations, and
b) Actual Durations

125
5.5. Analysis of PDF Classified by CSI Divisions in the Same
Project
One of the most important analyses that have been carried out in our study is the analysis
of similar activities in one project. The studied project is significantly unique, as it consists of
1271 similar housing buildings in Kuwait state. Each building consists of ground, first floor
and a roof. Each building includes most civil, mechanical and electrical activities. The study
includes 66 groups of similar activities that make the total activities under study is about
84,000 activities; the statistical properties for each CSI division were extracted and
summarized in Table (5.7). The activities represent most trades and most CSI divisions.
A significant note is shown in Table (5.7) as the mean values for actual durations
relevant to divisions (05), (07), (08), (09) and (15) activities are decreased by about 45% to
75% of the estimated durations. This result contradicts the previous results shown in section
5.4 with respect to the traditional types of work in the case of all projects. In addition, the
increment in mean value for actual against the estimated durations for the divisions (02) and
(03) is higher than those calculated for division (16), as illustrated in Table (5.7).
The proportions between maximum values for actual durations are computed for
individual activities to compare with the previously propositioned values from past studies.
The analysis proved that the maximum values represent at least 4 times the mean values for
actual durations that not correspond to the assumption made by Lucko et al. (2009) in getting
the pessimistic value for triangular distribution by adding 25% to the mean value.

126
 Table ‎5.7: Statistics for a Single Project’s Activities Classified by CSI Divisions

(Mean Actual Percentiles

No. of Std.
Division Mean / Estimated) Range Minimum Maximum Sum
Activities Deviation 25 50 75 85 90 95
%
(02) Site Works - Estimated 4,797 11 2 6 9 15 55,093 9 11 15 15 15 15
(02) Site Works - Actual 4,797 31 269 36 308 1 309 148,366 7 20 39 57 72 109
(03) Concrete Works - Estimated 19,173 12 6 22 7 29 233,118 9 11 15 15 25 29
(03) Concrete Works - Actual 19,173 15 127 30 369 1 370 295,117 3 6 15 23 32 56
(04) Masonry Works - Estimated 883 48 0 0 48 48 42,384 48 48 48 48 48 48
(04) Masonry Works - Actual 883 53 111 29 197 5 202 47,202 33 48 66 78 92 117
(05) Metal Works - Estimated 1,460 29 14 33 14 47 42,028 14 23 47 47 47 47
(05) Metal Works - Actual 1,458 13 45 29 396 1 397 19,015 2 3 6 21 41 85
(07) Thermal & Moisture
5,721 17 14 40 7 47 98,399 9 11 15 47 47 47
Protection - Estimated
(07) Thermal & Moisture
5,719 9 50 16 182 1 183 49,413 2 3 6 15 23 35
Protection - Actual
(08) Doors & Windows Works -
1,390 38 9 18 29 47 53,324 29 47 47 47 47 47
Estimated
(08) Doors & Windows Works -
1,386 29 75 38 236 1 237 39,876 3 10 41 70 83 111
Actual
(09) Finishes Works - Estimated 7,169 48 16 72 14 86 345,559 47 47 50 58 58 86
(09) Finishes Works - Actual 7,155 27 55 35 372 1 372 191,251 4 12 37 55 69 100
(15) Mechanical Works -
5,151 18 13 41 6 47 93,007 10 11 28 28 47 47
Estimated
(15) Mechanical Works - Actual 5,147 10 58 21 462 1 463 53,910 5 6 10 14 18 26
(15) Electrical Works - Estimated 1,873 26 7 17 18 35 48,648 23 23 35 35 35 35
(15) Electrical Works - Actual 1,866 35 136 47 244 0 244 65,878 5 8 54 95 111 131

127
 The Graphical statistical study and tests of goodness of fit for construction activities
show that, the probability density function of the actual durations for each activity tends to be
represented by the Lognormal distribution as illustrated in Figures from Figures (5.9) to
(5.15) and Table (5.8). The Figures from (5.9) to (5.15) represent activities for the divisions
(02) Site works, (03) concrete works, (07) thermal and moisture protection works, (08) doors
and windows works, (09) finishes works, (15) mechanical works, and (16) electrical works
respectively. As a general note, the lognormal distribution is recorded as the best distribution
to represent activities in a single project in Kuwait, then the second best fit is the gamma
distribution as shown in Table (5.9). The results of Chi square test for the 66 activities show
that, there are 28 activities that are best represented by the lognormal distribution and 22
activities are best represented by the gamma distribution as shown in Table (5.9).

Table ‎5.8: Chi Square Test Results for Curve Fittings of Activities in a Single Project in
Kuwait

Activity Beta Gamma Lognormal Normal Weibull

D01- Excavation up to Foundation 71 42 24 4,73 158
D03- Isolated Footings N/A 32 22 9,547 8,441
D05- Bituminous Paint to Surfaces N/A 55 14 1,510 1,185
D06 Backfill to till Ground Beams 105 82 78 1,201 2,381
D08- Casting of Ground Beams 33 25 8 16,61 5,388
D26- External Manhole and Drainage 34 40 26 498 206
D29- Water Supply Pipes 30 39 14 212 4,914
D35- Electrical Pipes for Walls 9 28 5 7 100
D36- Pulling Electrical Wiring 18 14 4 721 1,420
D43- Frames for Doors and Windows N/A 13 9 272 2,338
D51- WP for Wet Areas 42 14 10 452 101
D52- External Facade Works 17 11 5 143 370
D54- Ceramic Tiles - Walls and Floors 362 31 10 1,600 1,004
D62- Wooden Doors N/A 22 17 142 33

Table ‎5.9: Ranks of Curve Fitting for Each Probability Distribution Function According
to Chi Square Test Results

Rank of Distribution
Probability Density Function
1 2 3 4 5 N/A
Beta 5 9 17 8 0 27
Gamma 22 27 9 0 2 6
Lognormal 28 17 9 5 1 6
Normal 3 0 12 31 14 6
Weibull 2 7 13 16 22 6

128
a)

b)
Figure ‎5.9: Probability Density Function PDF and Curve Fitting for Division (02 - Site
Works) Activities Actual Durations for One Project: a) Excavation up to Foundation,
and b) Backfill till Ground Beams

129
a)

b)
Figure ‎5.10: Probability Density Function and Curve Fitting for Division (03 - Concrete
Works) Activities Actual Durations for One Project: a) Isolated Footings, and
b) Casting of Ground Beams

130
a)

b)
Figure ‎5.11: Probability Density Function and Curve Fitting for Division (07 - Thermal
and Moisture Protection Works) Activities Actual Durations for One Project:
a) Bituminous Paint to Surfaces, and b) WP for Wet Areas

131
a)

b)
Figure ‎5.12: Probability Density Function and Curve Fitting for Division (08 - Doors
and Windows Works) Activities Actual Durations for One Project: a) Frames for Doors
and Windows, and b) Wooden Doors

132
a)

b)
Figure ‎5.13: Probability Density Function and Curve Fitting for Division (09 - Finishes
Works) Activities Actual Durations for One Project: a) External Facade Works, and
b) Ceramic Tiles - Walls and Floors

133
a)

b)
Figure ‎5.14: Probability Density Function and Curve Fitting for Division
(15 - Mechanical Works) Activities Actual Durations for One Project: a) External
Manhole and Drainage, and b) Water Supply Pipes

134
a)

b)
Figure ‎5.15: Probability Density Function and Curve Fitting for Division
(16 - Electrical Works) Activities Actual Durations for One Project: a) Electrical Pipes
for Walls, and b) Pulling Electrical Wiring

135
 CHAPTER 6: REGRESSION MODELS FOR
ESTIMATING ACTIVITIES DURATIONS

6.1. General
Estimating realistic construction time becomes increasingly an essence because it often
serves as a crucial benchmark for assessing the progress and performance of a project as well
as the efficiency of the project organization (Falqi, 2004). One of the critical issues at the
early stage of the project is determining the contract duration. Although many owners
require fast completion, a thorough study must be made to determine the contract duration.
Where unrealistic contract duration is imposed, this will obviously represent an inevitable
risk to the performance of the contractor and may force the contractor either to accelerate the
progress of the works and neglect the desired quality, or to perform the works as required but
not on time (Falqi, 2004). On the other hand, the successful execution of construction
projects and keeping them within budgeted cost and defined schedules depend on
a methodology that requires sound engineering judgment (Hancher and Rowing, 1981; Falqi,
2004).
The conventional estimation of activities’ duration used in Critical Path Method (CPM)
technique depends on the resulted deterministic value from the average productivity rates of
all resources assigned to the activity. Using this approach does not guarantee that the project
would finish on time (Lana, 2006). Nevertheless, the Program Evaluation and Review
Technique (PERT) uses three-point estimate instead of the traditional single-point estimate
for each activity’s duration (Uher, 2003). All classic techniques impoverished considering
the effects of the potential risks that the construction project may encounter. Therefore, the
traditional scheduling technique stands powerless in front of numerous degrees of
uncertainties and risks that the construction projects may experience. Consequently, the
involved parties in the construction industries might inevitably be jeopardized to
unexpectedly immense losses.
The major objective of the current study is to provide a reliable technique for estimating
the duration of activities in the construction projects. This technique considers the actual
behaviour and performance of the similar real activities in large construction projects, which
are exposed to real risks that affect the performance of these activities. A variety of distinct
regression models were generated to delineate the relationship between the estimated

136
deterministic durations or budgets and their actual durations. The generated models provide
practical and easy tool for estimating the activity duration stochastically. This derivation
expands the previously reported studies and evaluates the actual results from currently
running projects or completed before this study.

6.2. Scope of the Study

In order to predict more reliable activities durations, historic data from real similar
projects were collected and analysed. The estimated duration, actual durations and budget
values were collected from real construction projects in three countries; Egypt, Kuwait and
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia between the years 1998 and 2013. A set of descriptive statistical
analyses and regression models were developed in order to evaluate the relationship between
the estimated durations and budgets against the actual durations of activities.
The investigated projects in this study include 13 distinct projects covering widespread
types of large construction projects for both public and private sectors. The projects include:
hospitals; high rise buildings; commercial malls; hotels; stadiums; banks; administration;
housing cities; infrastructure and highway projects. The study included a large number of
activities, approximately 84,000 activities, including Engineering, Procurement and
Construction (EPC) activities. The analysis of activities classified the regression models
based on the type of activities (EPC), the country, and CSI master format 1995 classification.
Throughout the study, various computer software packages such as Microsoft Access 2010,
Primavera Project Planner 3.1, Primavera Enterprise 6.7, Table curve 2D 5.01, Sigma Plot
12.0 and SPSS 22.0 have been utilized in order to collect, sort, analyse and derive statistical
properties and regression models for actual and estimated durations.

6.3. Relationship between the Estimated and the Actual

Durations
The major objective of the current study is to provide a reliable technique for estimating
statistical properties of activity’s durations. This technique evaluates the mean values and
standard deviations for activities in different cases of analyses as illustrated in Figure (6.1).
A variety of distinct regression models were generated to delineate the relationship between
the estimated deterministic durations and their relevant actual statistical properties. The
generated models provide a practical and easy tool for estimating the activity duration

137
stochastically. The statistical properties of activities will be used for preparing stochastic time
schedules for construction projects in the Middle East countries.

138
Figure ‎6.1: Cases of Analysis of Regression Models for the Estimated Durations or Budgets and the Actual Durations in Construction
Projects

139
6.3.1. Data Description According to Type of Work
The generated regression models are classified according to the type of activities as: (1)
Engineering - Procurement activities and (2) Construction activities. The descriptive
statistical analysis for 66,500 construction activities and 17,500 engineering - procurement
activities grouped by the estimated duration value is summarized in Table (6.1). Comparing
the values of activities durations over 90 days in the current study with similar ones in
Al-Momani’s (2000) study has proved that they are close to each other.
As clearly illustrated in Table (6.1) the smaller the estimated duration, the higher
duration slippage is. The ratio (Z) defines the relationship between the mean values of the
actual durations and the estimated duration. Z-values are high for small estimated durations.
Meanwhile, Z-values are smaller for high values of estimated durations. This unexpected
ratio might be attributed to the explanation by (Willis, 1986; Callahan et al., 1992) as there is
no time margin to compensate the improperly estimated small durations. On the other hand,
for the case of higher values of estimated durations, there is plenty of time to recover the
delays internally on the level of every activity. This result leads to the recommendation for
contractors to prepare the work breakdown structure for no less than about 15 days.
Table (6.1), also shows that for estimated durations less than four days, the Z-values for
engineering - procurement activities are higher than those for construction activities. Then
Z-values for engineering - procurement activities become smaller than construction activities
for all values of estimated durations. The deduced coefficient of variation (COV) for actual
duration values from Table (6.1) shows that the COV for construction activities ranges
between 0.72and 2.1, while COV for engineering - procurement ranges between 0.65 and
2.65. Furthermore, the values of COV for engineering - procurement activities are not always
higher than construction activities for similar values of estimated duration.
Planners and projects managers can utilize the mean and standard deviation values from
Table (6.1) as well as the probability density function resulted in the previous chapters to
forecast the project’s overall duration. Notwithstanding, forecasting project’s overall duration
based on the proposed regression models utilizing the lognormal distribution tends to be
greater than that calculated using conventionally estimated activities. But, the validation tests
showed that the forecasted projects’ durations are more realistic. Consequently, these
forecasted projects’ durations could oblige the contractors to implement different
methodologies and alternative plans to reduce the project’s duration.

140
 Table ‎6.1: Statistics of Actual Duration Values for Construction Activities and
Engineering- Procurement Activities

Construction Activities Engineering – Procurement Activities

COV = Std / AD

COV = Std / AD
Duration (days)
Z = Mean AD /

Z = Mean AD /
(ED)

Std. Deviation
Std. Deviation
(AD)

Mean Actual
Number of

Number of
Activities
Activities
Estimated

Median

Median
Mean

(days)

(days)
Mode

Mode
(AD)
Duration

ED

ED
Actual
(days) Duration
(days)

1 1,059 44 20 1 59.1 1.3 44.1 1,927 86 55 7 105.6 1.2 85.6

2 4,413 82 28 1 110.3 1.3 41.1 39 88 70 1 99.7 1.1 44.2
3 3,987 62 8 2 107.2 1.7 20.7 56 35 6 6 92.9 2.6 11.7
4 3,638 73 17 3 108.2 1.5 18.1 19 94 27 3 152.5 1.6 23.6
5 4,086 83 17 5 158.0 1.9 16.6 75 75 39 4 85.9 1.1 15.0
6 4,591 98 41 6 122.2 1.2 16.3 128 22 6 6 43.0 2.0 3.7
7 3,340 93 31 7 140.0 1.5 13.3 285 36 10 6 65.1 1.8 5.2
8 4,033 70 24 8 100.6 1.4 8.7 96 44 30 30 45.5 1.0 5.4
9 1,120 80 25 9 114.2 1.4 8.9 4 66 15 4 109.2 1.7 7.3
10 7,858 71 22 10 109.0 1.5 7.1 374 42 19 12 57.7 1.4 4.2
11 590 111 61 8 124.6 1.1 10.1 7 120 42 12 118.0 1.0 10.9
12 5,757 118 58 7 138.4 1.2 9.9 1,277 58 20 12 79.3 1.4 4.8
13 2,602 36 18 10 75.7 2.1 2.8 43 46 43 7 43.7 0.9 3.6
14 3,809 109 60 14 125.5 1.1 7.8 5,516 65 25 13 90.9 1.4 4.6
15 2,945 135 79 14 159.5 1.2 9.0 599 54 23 16 67.2 1.3 3.6
20 829 141 105 19 137.2 1.0 7.0 159 91 48 22 100.4 1.1 4.5
25 615 111 61 4 138.7 1.2 4.4 258 77 29 28 116.9 1.5 3.1
30 604 161 116 34 160.8 1.0 5.4 917 92 45 29 95.2 1.0 3.1
40 165 127 90 46 127.8 1.0 3.2 108 84 49 11 90.9 1.1 2.1
50 1,778 76 53 4 90.0 1.2 1.5 54 145 105 9 148.5 1.0 2.9
60 144 130 97 61 108.6 0.8 2.2 547 126 98 47 113.6 0.9 2.1
90 119 152 115 19 123.9 0.8 1.7 347 149 120 36 116.6 0.8 1.7
120 10 380 355 50 318.4 0.8 3.2 324 188 170 47 123.9 0.7 1.6
150 4 274 151 5 351.7 1.3 1.8 144 218 197 196 141.7 0.6 1.5
180 87 208 186 33 153.5 0.7 1.2

6.3.2. Regression Models for Construction Activities

The regression models for construction activities were generated from the three countries
in our study to provide a regional model in the Middle East countries. The investigation
comprised 66,500 distinct construction activities to develop a regression model describing the
relationship between activities’ estimated durations and their relevant mean actual durations
as well as the relationship between the estimated durations and the standard deviation for
actual activities. These regression models can be utilized to estimate the mean value and the
standard deviation for activities based on their initially estimated durations through
traditional techniques and average productivity rates for resources loaded on each activity.
The extracted mean and standard deviation values for each activity will then be used in any
simulation process to predict a more reliable project’s overall duration. These regression
models can be utilized to predict the average actual duration and standard deviation for any

141
activity based on its relevant estimated duration extracted by activity’s scope and productivity
rate.
The general model that represents the construction activities in the three countries is
described by Table (6.2) and Equations (6.1) and (6.2) for mean values and standard
deviation values respectively.

y = a + b. ln(x) …………………………………………………….…….….. (‎6.1)

y = a + b. x 2 …………………………….….……………………….…….….. (‎6.2)

Where y is the average value of actual duration, x is the estimated duration value
and a, b are constants summarized in Table (6.2).

As shown in Figure (6. 2) there is a rapid increasing slope of the average actual duration
against estimated duration until the estimated duration reaches about 30 days, then the
increasing rate remains constant with moderate slope. While, the standard deviation for actual
durations increased slowly till the estimated durations reaches 40 days then the slope
increases rapidly.

142
 200
Average Actual Duration (days)

150

100

50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Estimated Duration (days)
a) Mean Value

250
Standard Deviation for Actual Duration (days)

200

150

100

50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Estimated Duration (days)
b) Standard Deviation

Figure ‎6.2: Regression Models for Estimated Durations of Construction Activities in the
Three Countries and Actual Durations’ Statistics: a) Mean, and b) Standard Deviation

143
 Another analysis on the construction activities was conducted for each individual country
in order to estimate the impact of potential risks and uncertainty level specific to each
country. The regression models extracted for construction activities in Egypt are illustrated in
Figure (6.3). The relationship between the estimated durations and the actual durations’
statistics (Mean and standard duration values) and are best represented by Equations (6.2) and
Table (6.2). As shown in Figure (6.3) the slope of average actual duration is very high until
the estimated duration of about ten days. Then the slope slowly decreases until the estimated
duration of 30 days.
The extracted regression models for construction activities in Kuwait are illustrated in
Figure (6.4). The relationship between the estimated durations and the mean values of the
actual durations is best represented by Equations (6.1) and Table (6.2). Meanwhile, the
relationship between estimated durations and standard deviation values of actual durations is
best represented by Equation (6.3) ant Table (6.2).
As shown in Figure (6.4) the average actual durations in Kuwait are rapidly increased
until the estimated durations reach about 20 days. Then the slope slowly decreases until the
estimated duration of 30 days, and then the curve seems to be a straight line with fixed slope.
Besides, the slope of standard deviation for the actual durations is very high until the
estimated duration of about ten days. Then the standard deviation curve becomes horizontal
for all estimated durations as shown in Figure (6.3b).

y = a + b/x………………………………………………..…………………..(‎6.3)

In general, the values of average actual durations relevant to estimated durations less
than 20 days are higher in the Egypt and Kuwait. Furthermore, the highest values for this
range are observed in Kuwait due to fluctuated level of productivity rates, the strict
application of quality control programs, the lack of manpower in local market, and lack of
planning and control by the subcontractors (Koushki et al., 2005).

144
 250
Average Actual Duration (days)

200

150

100

50

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Estimated Duration (days)
a) Mean

300

250
Standard Deviation for Actual Duration (days)

200

150

100

50

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Estimated Duration (days)
b) Standard Deviation
Figure ‎6.3: Regression Models for Estimated Durations of Construction Activities in
Egypt and Actual Durations’ Statistics: a) Mean, and b) Standard Deviation

145
 250

200
Average Actual Duration (days)

150

100

50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Estimated Duration (days)
a) Mean

180
Standard Deviation for Actual Duration (days)

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Estimated Duration (days)
b) Standard Deviation
Figure ‎6.4: Regression Models for Estimated Durations of Construction Activities in
Kuwait and Actual Durations’ Statistics: a) Mean, and b) Standard Deviation

146
 The extracted regression models for construction activities in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia are illustrated in Figure (6.5). The relationship between the estimated durations and
mean values of actual durations is best represented by Equations (6.4) and Table (6.2).
Meanwhile, the relationship between the estimated durations and standard deviation values of
actual durations is best represented by Equation (6.1) ant Table (6.2).
As shown in Figure (6.5) the relation between average actual and estimated durations in
the KSA is a linear with a quiet high rate of slope from the beginning till the end. While, the
standard deviation values of actual durations in Saudi Arabia are rapidly increased until the
estimated durations reach about 20 days. Then the curve seems to be a straight line with fixed
slope till the end.

y = a + b. x………………………………..………...…………………………(‎6.4)

350

300
Average Actual Duration (days)

250

200

150

100

50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Estimated Duration (days)
a) Mean

147
 120
Standard Deviation for Actual Duration (days)

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Estimated Duration (days)
b) Standard Deviation
Figure ‎6.5: Regression Models for Estimated Durations of Construction Activities in
KSA and Actual Durations’ Statistics: a) Mean, and b) Standard Deviation

6.3.3. Regression Models for Engineering-Procurement Activities

The regression models for engineering-procurement activities are developed by
analysing 17,500 activities in the same three countries and are illustrated in Figure (6.6). The
best fit for average values of the actual durations relevant to engineering-procurement
activities in the three countries is a linear model as formulated by Equation (6.4) and the
constant values included in Table (6.2). In addition, the relationship between the standard
deviation values of the actual duration and the estimated durations for engineering-
procurement activities in the three countries is best represented by Equation (6.1) and Table
(6.2).

148
 600

500
Average Actual Duration (days)

400

300

200

100

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Estimated Duration (days)
a) Mean

200
Standard Deviation for Actual Duration (days)

150

100

50

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Estimated Duration (days)
b) Standard Deviation

Figure ‎6.6: Regression Models for Estimated Durations of (Engineering-Procurement

Activities) Three Countries and Actual Durations’ Statistics: a) Mean, and b) Standard
Deviation

149
6.3.4. Regression Models for Critical Activities
The study of the actual behaviour of critical activities included approximately 12,900
critical activities representing about 15.4% of a sample size that equals about 84,500
activities. The construction critical activities represent about 14% percentage of the total
construction activities, while the critical engineering - procurement activities represent about
20% percentage of the total engineering – procurement activities.
Equation (6.1) and Table (6.2) represent the regression models for critical activities in all
phases. Besides, Equation (6.1) and Table (6.2) represent the regression models for
construction critical activities. While, the engineering - procurement critical activities are
represented by Equation (6.4) and Table (6.2).As clearly shown in Figure (6.7) the ratio (RD)
in construction activities is higher than engineering – procurement activities till the estimated
duration of 20 days due to the fluctuated levels of productivity and shortage of manpower.
While, the ratio (RD) alters higher for engineering – procurement than construction for the
estimated durations greater than 80 days due to delays in material delivery and poor
coordination between main contractors and international suppliers [Al-Khalil & Al-Ghafly,
1999; Abdul Rashid and Bakarman, 2005; Koushki et al., 2005]. The r2 coefficient and
constant values for regression models of critical activities are summarized in Table (6.2).

160

140
Average Actual Duration (days)

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Estimated Duration (days)
a) All Phases

150
 160

140
Average Actual Duration (days)

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Estimated Duration (days)
b) Construction

200

180

160
Average Actual Duration (days)

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Estimated Duration (days)
c) Engineering - Procurement

Figure ‎6.7: Regression Models for Actual Durations of Critical Activities in the Three
Countries Grouped by Phase of Work: a) All Phases, b) Construction, and
c) Engineering – Procurement

151
6.3.5. Regression Models for Construction Activities in Kuwait Classified
by CSI Divisions
An in depth analysis has been performed on the construction activities of all projects in
Kuwait categorized according to the CSI divisions. The analysis included seven distinct
divisions that contain both civil and electro-mechanical works.
The first analysis was carried on construction activities under division (02 site works).
The analysis shows that the site works’ activities are best represented by Equation (6.1) and
Table (6.2) for the case of average values of the actual durations. While, the relationship
between the standard deviation values of the actual durations and the estimated durations for
the construction activities under division (02 sit works) is best represented by Equation (6.3)
and Table (6.2). Figure (6.8a) describes the relationship between the mean values of the
actual durations and the estimated durations for site works (division 02). The curve starts
with a rapid increase till an estimated duration of about 15 days. Then the slope increases
moderately till an estimated duration of about 40 days. Then the slope seems to be a straight
line with fixed slope. In addition, Figure (6.8b) describes the relationship between the
standard deviation values of the actual detritions and the estimated durations for site works’
activities. The standard deviation values are represented by a curve that starts with a very
rapid increase till an estimated duration of about 20 days then the slope becomes horizontal
till the end.
The second analysis was conducted on the construction activities under division (03
concrete works) in all projects in Kuwait. The analysis shows that concrete works’ activities
are best represented by Equation (6.5) and Table (6.2) for the case of the mean values of the
actual durations. In addition, the relationship between the standard deviation values of actual
durations and the estimated durations is best represented by Equation (6.4) and Table (6.2).
Figure (6.9a) shows that the slope between the mean values of the actual durations and the
estimated durations for division (03 Concrete works) starts with a rapid increase till an
estimated duration of about 10 days. Then the slope increases moderately till an estimated
duration of about 40 days. Then the slope tends to be a straight line. In addition, Figure (6.9b)
shows that the relationship between the standard deviation values of the actual durations and
the estimated durations for concrete works of all projects in Kuwait is linear.

y = a + b√x……………………………..……………………………………(‎6.5)

152
 250

200
Average Actual Duration (days)

150

100

50

0
0 20 40 60 80
Estimated Duration (days)
a) Mean

120
Standard Deviation for Actual Duration (days)

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Estimated Duration (days)
b) Standard Deviation

Figure ‎6.8: Regression Model for Estimated Durations for Construction Activities in All
Projects in Kuwait under Division (02 Site Works) and Actual Durations’ Statistics:
a) Mean, and b) Standard Deviation

153
 200

180

160
Average Actual Duration (days)

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Estimated Duration (days)
a) Mean

180

160
Standard Deviation for Actual Duration (days)

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Estimated Duration (days)
b) Standard Deviation

Figure ‎6.9: Regression Model for Estimated Durations for Construction Activities in All
Projects in Kuwait under Division (03 Concrete Works) and Actual Durations’
Statistics: a) Mean, and b) Standard Deviation

154
 The third analysis was carried out on masonry construction activities in all projects in
Kuwait. The analysis shows that division (04 masonry works) is best represented by Equation
(6.1) and Table (6.-2) for both the mean values and the standard deviation values of the actual
durations. Figure (6.10a) shows that the slope between the mean values of the actual
durations and the estimated durations starts with a rapid increase till an estimated duration of
about 10 days. Then the slope increases moderately till an estimated duration of about 25
days. Finally, the slope seems to be a straight line with fixed slope. In addition, Figure
(6.10b) shows that the slope between the standard deviation values of the actual durations and
the estimated durations starts with a high increase till an estimated duration of about 20 days.
Then the slope becomes a straight line with fixed slope till the end.
The forth analysis was carried out on doors and windows construction activities in all
projects in Kuwait. The analysis shows that division (08 doors and windows works) is best
represented by Equation (6.4) and Table (6.2) for both the mean values and the standard
deviation values of actual durations. Figure (6.11) show that the slope between the mean
values of the actual durations and the estimated durations is higher than the slope between the
standard deviation values of the actual durations and the estimated durations.
The fifth analysis was carried out on finishes construction activities in all projects in
Kuwait. The analysis shows that division (09finishes works) is best represented by Equation
(6.3) and Table (6.2) for the mean values of actual durations. In addition, the relationship
between the standard deviation values of actual durations and the estimated durations is best
represented by Equation (6.6) and Table (6.2).Figure (6.12) shows that the slope between the
mean values of the actual durations and the estimated durations starts with a high slope till an
estimated duration of about 20 days then the slope becomes horizontal till the end.
Furthermore, the slope between the standard deviation values of the actual durations and
estimated durations can be considered horizontal from an estimated duration of about 10 days
till the end as shown in Figure (6.12).

y = a + b/x 2 ……………………………………………………….…………(‎6.6)

155
 300

250
Average Actual Duration (days)

200

150

100

50

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Estimated Duration (days)
a) Mean

160
Standard Deviation for Actual Duration (days)

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Estimated Duration (days)
b) Standard Deviation
Figure ‎6.10: Regression Models for Estimated Durations of Construction Activities in
All Projects in Kuwait under Division (04 Masonry Works) and Actual Durations’
Statistics: a) Mean, and b) Standard Deviation

156
 350

300
Average Actual Duration (days)

250

200

150

100

50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Estimated Duration (days)
a) Mean

180

160
Standard Deviation for Actual Duration (days)

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Estimated Duration (days)
b) Standard Deviation

Figure ‎6.11: Regression Models for Estimated Durations of Construction Activities in

All Projects in Kuwait under Division (08 Doors and Windows Works) and Actual
Durations’ Statistics: a) Mean, and b) Standard Deviation

157
 100

80
Average Actual Duration (days)

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80
Estimated Duration (days)
a) Mean

100
Standard Deviation for Actual Duration (days)

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80
Estimated Duration (days)
b) Standard Deviation

Figure ‎6.12: Regression Models for Estimated Durations of Construction Activities in

All Projects in Kuwait under Division (09 Finishes Works) and Actual Durations’
Statistics: a) Mean, and b) Standard Deviation

158
 The sixth and the seventh studies are relevant to divisions (15 mechanical works) and
(16 electrical works) respectively. The sixth analysis was carried out on mechanical
construction activities that include plumbing, firefighting and HVAC works in all projects in
Kuwait. The analysis shows that division (15 mechanical works) is best represented by
Equation (6.1) and Table (6.2) for the mean values of the actual durations. In addition, the
relationship between the standard deviation values of actual durations and the estimated
durations is best represented by Equation (6-3) and Table (6.2). Figure(6.13) shows that the
slope between the mean values of the actual durations and the estimated durations starts with
high slope till an estimated duration of about 20 days then the slope increases moderately till
the end. Furthermore, the slope between the standard deviation values of the actual durations
and the estimated durations starts with very rapid increase till estimated duration of 10 days,
and then tends to become horizontal till the end as shown in Figure (6.12).

y = a + b/√𝑥………………………………….…………………….…………(‎6.7)

The seventh analysis was carried out on electrical construction activities that include
power, fire alarm and telecommunication works in all projects in Kuwait. The analysis shows
that division (16 electrical works) is best represented by Equation (6.7) and Table (6.2) for
the mean values of the actual durations. In addition, the relationship between the standard
deviation values of the actual durations and the estimated durations is best represented by
Equation (6.5) and Table (6.2). Figure (6.14) shows that the slope between the mean values
of the actual durations and the estimated durations starts with a high slope till an estimated
duration of about 15 days then the slope increases moderately till the end. Furthermore, the
slope between the standard deviation values of the actual durations and the estimated
durations tends to become a linear with a moderate slope till the end as shown in Figure
(6.14).
As a general note, all regression models for the construction activities considered in our
study in Kuwait follow nonlinear models except division (08 doors and windows works)
activities. Furthermore, most regression models for the construction activities in Kuwait start
with rapid increasing slopes till estimated duration up to about 15 days. Then most models
slopes are slowly increased except for division (09 finishes works) that tends to become
horizontal.

159
 250

200
Average Actual Duration (days)

150

100

50

0
0 20 40 60 80
Estimated Duration (days)
a) Mean

125
Standard Deviation for Actual Duration (days)

120

115

110

105

100

95

90

85
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Estimated Duration (days)
b) Standard Deviation

Figure ‎6.13: Regression Models for Estimated Durations of Construction Activities in

All Projects in Kuwait under Division (15 Mechanical Works) and Actual Durations’
Statistics: a) Mean, and b) Standard Deviation

160
 250

200
Average Actual Duration (days)

150

100

50

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Estimated Duration (days)
a) Mean 16

180

160
Standard Deviation for Actual Duration (days)

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Estimated Duration (days)
b) Standard Deviation

Figure ‎6.14: Regression Models for Estimated Durations of Construction Activities in

All Projects in Kuwait under Division (16Electrical Works) and Actual Durations’
Statistics: a) Mean, and b) Standard Deviation

161
6.3.6. Regression Models for Construction Activities in an Individual
Project Classified by CSI Divisions
This analysis has been conducted on the construction activities of a large project in
Kuwait with a total budget of 55 million Kuwaiti Dinars and contains about 6,400
construction activities. The regression models for all construction activities in a single project
in Kuwait are shown in Figure (6.15). The regression model that delineates the relationship
between the mean values of the actual durations and the estimated durations of all activities
in a single project in Kuwait is represented by Equation (6.5) and Table (6.2). Besides, the
regression model that describes the relationship between the standard deviation values of the
actual durations and the estimated durations is represented by Equation (6.3) and Table (6.2).
As shown in Figure (6.15), the slope between the mean values of the actual durations and
the estimated durations starts with a moderate increase till an estimated duration of about 15
days, and then the slope tends to become fixed till the end. In addition, the slope between the
standard deviation values of the actual durations and the estimated durations starts with
a very rapid increase till estimated durations of approximately 10 days. Then the slop tends to
become horizontal till the end as illustrated in Figure (6.15).

162
 250

200
Average Actual Duration (days)

150

100

50

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Estimated Duration (days)
a) Mean

100
Standard Deviation for Actual Duration (days)

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Estimated Duration (days)
b) Standard Deviation
Figure ‎6.15: Regression Models for Estimated Durations of All Construction Activities
in a Single Project in Kuwait and Actual Durations’ Statistics: a) Mean, and
b) Standard Deviation

163
 The analysis of division (02 site works) activities in a single project in Kuwait shows
that, the regression model is best represented by Equations (6.5) and Table (6.2) for the case
of mean values of the actual durations. Also, it is found that the case of the standard deviation
values of the actual durations is best represented by Equation (6.1) and Table (6.2). Besides,
the slope between mean values of the actual durations and the estimated durations starts with
a moderate slope and continues till the end as shown in Figure (6.16). In addition, the slope
between the standard deviation values of the actual durations and the estimated durations
starts with a rapid increase till an estimated duration of about 10 days. Then the slope
increases moderately between the estimated durations 10 and 25 days. Then the slope
increases with a slow fixed slope till the end as shown in Figure (6.16).
Furthermore, the analysis of division (03 concrete works) activities in a single project in
Kuwait shows that, the regression model is best represented by Equations (6.2) and Table
(6.2) for the case of the mean values of the actual durations. Also, it is found that the case of
the standard deviation values of actual durations is best represented by Equation (6.5) and
Table (6.2). Besides, the slope between the mean values of the actual durations and the
estimated durations starts with a slow slope till an estimated duration of about 30 days. Then
the slope of the actual durations increases rapidly till the end as shown in Figure (6.17). In
addition, the slope between the standard deviation values of the actual durations and the
estimated durations starts with a moderate increase till an estimated duration of about 10
days. Then the slope increases slowly from an estimated durations 10 days till the end as
shown in Figure (6.17).
The analysis of division (15 mechanical works) activities in a single project in Kuwait
shows that, the regression models are best represented by Equations (6.5) and Table (6.2) for
the case of the mean values of the actual durations and by Equation (6.3) and Table (6.2) for
the case of the standard deviation values of actual durations. Besides, the curve of the mean
values start with a rapid slope till an estimated duration of about 10 days, and continues with
a moderate slope till the end as shown in Figure (6.18). In addition, the slope of the standard
deviation values increases rapidly till an estimated duration of about 10 days. Then the slope
becomes horizontal till the end as shown in Figure (6.18).

164
 250

200
Average Actual Duration (days)

150

100

50

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Estimated Duration (days)
a) Mean

100
Standard Deviation for Actual Duration (days)

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80
Estimated Duration (days)
b) Standard Deviation
Figure ‎6.16: Regression Models for Estimated Durations of Construction Activities in
a Single Project in Kuwait under Division (02 Site Works) and Actual Durations’
Statistics: a) Mean, and b) Standard Deviation

165
 180

160
Average Actual Duration (days)

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Estimated Duration (days)
a) Mean

80
Standard Deviation for Actual Duration (days)

60

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Estimated Duration (days)
b) Standard Deviation
Figure ‎6.17: Regression Models for Estimated Durations of Construction Activities in
a Single Project in Kuwait under Division (03 Concrete Works) and Actual Durations’
Statistics: a) Mean, and b) Standard Deviation

166
 180

160
Average Actual Duration (days)

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Estimated Duration (days)
a) Mean

70
Standard Deviation for Actual Duration (days)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Estimated Duration (days)
b) Standard Deviation
Figure ‎6.18: Regression Models for Estimated Durations of Construction Activities in
a Single Project in Kuwait under Division (15 Mechanical Works) and Actual
Durations’ Statistics: a) Mean, and b) Standard Deviation

167
Table ‎6.2: Regression Models, Model Constants, and r2 Coefficients for All Cases for the Relationship between the Estimated Durations
and the Statistics of the Actual Durations
Mean Value Standard Deviation
Case of 2
Analysis Equation Constant r Equation Constant r2
Equation Equation
No. a b Coefficient No. a b Coefficient
Construction activities grouped by country
All Countries 6-1 y = a + b. ln(x) 43.152146 25.791774 0.722268 6-2 y = a + bx2 108.582178 0.004425 0.759478
Egypt 6-1 y = a + b. ln(x) -31.315662 57.501272 0.637207 6-1 y = a + b. ln(x) -17.1794 79.36755 0.955573
Kuwait 6-1 y = a + b. ln(x) 39.278186 28.153913 0.716789 6-3 y = a + b/x 144.093000 -86.754800 0.757840
KSA 6-4 y = a + b. x 25.808561 2.660858 0.760414 6-1 y = a + b. ln(x) -7.696580 24.762040 0.578467
Engineering - Procurement activities in all countries
All Engineering -
6-4 y = a + b. x 52.247198 0.935995 0.941770 6-1 y = a + b. ln(x) 13.408429 23.270368 0.660946
Procurement
Critical activities grouped by phase of work
All Phases 6-1 y = a + b. ln(x) -6.546497 28.374720 0.845170
Construction 6-1 y = a + b. ln(x) -8.330252 29.038051 0.809375
Engineering -
6-4 y = a + b. x 2.923219 1.662299 0.933647
Procurement
Construction activities in Kuwait grouped by CSI Divisions
DIV 02 6-1 y = a + b. ln(x) -25.436390 44.141265 0.844100 6-3 y = a + b/x 102.822900 -62.393000 0.863192
DIV 03 6-5 y = a + b √𝑥 -10.956444 17.486019 0.945975 6-4 y = a + b. x 51.878760 0.866990 0.762841
DIV 04 6-1 y = a + b. ln(x) -71.293389 76.259028 0.860520 6-1 y = a + b. ln(x) 36.929980 23.249090 0.530186
DIV 08 6-4 y = a + b. x 42.765386 2.332210 0.857364 6-4 y = a + b. x 70.447588 0.522886 0.553331
DIV 09 6-3 y = a + b/x 75.103390 -91.726218 0.731517 6-6 y = a + b/x2 85.586425 -53.609215 0.714495
DIV 15 6-1 y = a + b. ln(x) 72.249936 27.216517 0.757291 6-3 y = a + b/x 118.022700 -25.080000 0.660659
y = a + b⁄
DIV 16 6-7 √𝑥 232.291363 -235.85607 0.838533 6-5 y = a + b √𝑥 109.363947 5.971599 0.775508

Construction activities in one project grouped by CSI Divisions

All Divisions 6-5 y = a + b √𝑥 14.575190 20.443443 0.861593 6-3 y = a + b/x 79.636910 -61.103100 0.726438
DIV 02 6-5 y = a + b √𝑥 -36.682006 30.708906 0.983824 6-1 y = a + b. ln(x) 19.967720 15.125640 0.776989
DIV 03 6-2 𝑦 = 𝑎 + 𝑏. 𝑥 2 57.499591 0.031131 0.924581 6-5 y = a + b √𝑥 21.624833 6.033689 0.696109
DIV 15 6-5 y = a + b √𝑥 4.876508 19.171406 0.942550 6-3 y = a + b/x 49.294920 -32.024708 0.612711

168
6.3.7. Influence of the Total Float of Activities on the Ratio of the Actual
Duration to the Estimated Duration
Another key analysis has been conducted to investigate the relationship between the
originally estimated total float and the duration overrun. This study illustrates that there is no
direct relationship between the total float and the actual duration of activities as shown in
Figure (6.19). However, it could be assumed that preparing a schedule with a higher total
float would lead to a higher time overrun. Also, it could be concluded that the duration ratio
(RD) between the mean values of the actual durations and the estimated durations for various
activities with total float range between zero and 30 days doesn't follow a steady behaviour.
Whilst, the ratio (RD) seems more stable for the activities with a total float ranges between
30 and 200 days. Another major note is that the ratio (RD) is almost small for critical
activities which have zero total float (TF), since most planning teams and managers pay more
attention for activities with a zero total float.

Estimated Duration 15 Estimated Duration 30 Estimated Duration 60

Estimated Duration 90 Estimated Duration 120
800%
Ratio of Actual Duration to Estimated Duarion

700%

600%

500%

400%

300%

200%

100%

0%
0-10
0

101-200

151-200

201-300

301-400

401-500
91-150
10-20

21-30

31-60

61-90

Total Float

Figure ‎6.19: Relationship between the Total Float and the Increment in Ratio of Mean
Actual Duration to Estimated Duration

169
6.3.8. Case Study: Analysis of Actual Performance of Construction
Activities in a Single Project
The Unexpected results of exaggerated ratios between the actual and the estimated
durations propelled to study the activities progress in more detail from the start till the end.
The analysis of the phased progress of the construction activities for different CSI divisions
indicates that the activities often perform in a good progress during the early phases, and then
the activities are suspended for different reasons. The activities progress in early stages and
the suspension periods are illustrated in Table (6.3) and Figure (6.20). The civil works as
well as electro-mechanical activities suffered the suspension for a period extends between
two to five months. For instance, the estimated duration for activity A1 “Casting Concrete for
Raft” was only one day; however the actual duration was about five months. Meanwhile, the
activity A1 started on 14 Nov 2011 and appeared 70% completed in the first update, and then
the activity was suspended for more than three months till the update on 1st April 2012. After
that, the remaining 30% was completed in three days as it was completed on 3rd April 2012.
In light of the included data in Table (6.3), and as illustrated in Figure (6.20), the calculated
period between the actual start and the actual finish for the activity A1 is shown about 142
days; however the actual duration is less than 19 days.

100

90

80

70
Percent Completion

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1/Nov/2011

1/Jun/2012

1/Aug/2012

1/Nov/2012
1/Jan/2012

1/Jan/2013
1/Mar/2012

1/Mar/2013
1/Dec/2011

1/Dec/2012
1/Apr/2012

1/Apr/2013
1/Jul/2012
1/Feb/2012

1/Sep/2012

1/Feb/2013
1/May/2012

1/Oct/2012

A1 A7 A11 Start and Finish Dates

A12 A16

Figure ‎6.20: The Actual Periodical Progress for Construction Activities in Different CSI
Divisionsin a Single Project in Kuwait

170
 Table ‎6.3: The Periodical Actual Progress for Construction Activities of Different CSI Divisions in a Single Project in Kuwait

Duration Actual Dates Updated Cumulative Percentage of Completion %

CSI Division

Activity ID

31/Aug/2012

30/Nov/2012

31/Mar/2013
31/Dec/2012

30/Apr/2013
31/Oct/2012

28/Feb/2013
30/Jun/2012

31/Jan/2013
1/Nov/2011

31/Jul/2012
1/Dec/2011

1/Apr/2012
1/Feb/2012

1/Jun/2012
Estimated
Activity Name

Actual
Start Finish

03 A1 Casting Concrete For Raft 1 142 14-Nov-11 03-Apr-12 0 70 70 70 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
03 A2 Removing Form Work For Raft 2 145 16-Nov-11 06-Apr-12 0 70 70 70 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
03 A3 Form Work For Raft 2 144 10-Nov-11 01-Apr-12 0 70 70 70 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
03 A4 Steel Raft Lower Layer 5 152 02-Nov-11 01-Apr-12 0 70 70 70 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
03 A5 Steel Raft For External Walls 10 153 14-Nov-11 14-Apr-12 0 70 70 70 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Sand Cement Block Walls, 4th Level, 1st
04 A6 21 165 21-Aug-12 01-Feb-13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 90 90 90 90 100 100 100
Zone
Sand Cement Block Walls, 4th Level, 2 nd
04 A7 21 140 15-Sep-12 01-Feb-13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 70 70 70 70 100 100 100
Zone
Sand Cement Block Walls, 1st Level, 1st
04 A8 21 125 30-Jun-12 01-Nov-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 90 90 100 100 100 100 100 100
Zone
Sand Cement Block Walls, 2nd Level, 1 st
04 A9 21 113 12-Jul-12 01-Nov-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 95 95 100 100 100 100 100 100
Zone
Sand Cement Block Walls, 5th Level, 1 st
04 A10 21 57 06-Oct-12 01-Dec-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 30 100 100 100 100 100
Zone
08 A11 Fixation Of Marble Cladding 35 70 22-Jan-13 01-Apr-13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 85 90 100
09 A12 Plaster Work 1st Layer 30 151 01-Oct-12 28-Feb-13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 70 70 100 100 100 100
st
09 A13 Plaster Work 1 Layer 30 144 01-Oct-12 21-Feb-13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 70 70 70 100 100 100
st
09 A14 Plaster Work 1 Layer 30 130 12-Sep-12 19-Jan-13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 95 95 100 100 100 100
nd
09 A15 Plaster Work 2 Layer 30 123 26-Sep-12 26-Jan-13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 95 100 100 100 100
15 A16 Fixation of Floor Drain 3 150 05-Sep-12 01-Feb-13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 50 50 100 100 100
15 A17 Fixation of HVAC Ducts 12 108 16-Aug-12 01-Dec-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 50 100 100 100 100 100

171
6.4. Relationship between Activities Budget and the Actual
Durations
Another analysis to estimate the activity’s duration was conducted by evaluating the
relationship between the estimated budget and the mean values of the actual durations of
activities. The study was conducted on about 35,000 construction activities in Kuwait with
a total budget of approximately 240 million Kuwaiti Dinar (1KD = 3.5 USD).
The studied activities represent various projects and include most types of trades. It is
found that the average budgeted rate per estimated duration is about 492.1 KD/day. While the
average budgeted rate per actual duration is about 83.7 KD/day as summarized in Table (6-4).
In addition, it is found that the highest budget rate per actual duration is assigned to division
(05) metal works, then to division (03) concrete works. However, the lowest assigned budget
per day is for divisions (15) mechanical works and (09) finishing works.

Table ‎6.4: Budget per the Estimated and the Actual Durations in Kuwait Classified by
CSI Divisions

Division Budget/ Estimated Budget/ Actual

CSI DIVISION Budget Duration Duration
% (KD/day) (KD/day)
DIV 02 Site Works 10.94 946.3 153.5
DIV 03 Concrete Works 40.91 694.5 203.5
DIV 04 Masonry Works 2.59 462.1 95.5
DIV 05 Metal Works 7.44 1,057.5 234.7
DIV 06 Wood and Plastic Works 0.12 476.9 74.9
DIV 07 Thermal and Moisture Protection 2.89 293.8 73.7
DIV 08 Doors and Windows Works 3.08 383.3 70.3
DIV 09 Finishes Works 6.6 185.1 40.9
DIV 14 Conveying System Works 0.81 447.2 51.6
DIV 15 Mechanical Works 11.3 284.7 33.9
DIV 16 Electrical Works 11.65 504.7 45.3
All Divisions 492.1 83.7

172
 The regression models that describe the relationship between the average values of the
actual duration and their budget assigned to all construction activities are best represented by
Equation (6.3) and Table (6.5). The developed regression model is valid for construction
activities with assigned budgeted values greater than 2,500 KD. The regression model starts
with approximately a fixed increase as illustrated in Figure (6.21).

140

120

100
Actual Duration (days)

80

60

40

20

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Budget (1000 KD)

Figure ‎6.21: Relationship between Activities’ Average Budget (1000 KD) and the Mean
Values of the Actual Durations

Another analysis was conducted to describe the relationship between the budget assigned
to the construction activities and their relevant actual durations. The objective of this study is
to derive estimated durations for activities of construction projects with higher degrees of
reliability by utilizing the activity’s budgeted value. It is found that all divisions together as
well as division (15) follow the same regression model that is represented by Equation (6.3)
and Table (6.5). While, divisions (03), (09), and (16) follow regression models represented by
Equation (6.1) and Table (6.5). In addition, division (02) follows Equation (6.2) and Table
(6.5).

173
 Table ‎6.5: Regression Models, Model Constants, and r2 Coefficients for the Average
Budget of Construction Activities and the Actual Durations Classified by
CSI Divisions

Equation Constant r2
Division Equation
No. a b Coefficient
All Divisions 6-5 y = a + b√x -106.8500419 63.91129224 0.90151434

Division (02) 6-4 y = a + b. x 63.92006073 2.148396907 0.524244605

Division (03) 6-1 y = a + b. ln(x) -100.7569902 70.90250967 0.873196646

Division (09) 6-1 y = a + b. ln(x) -5.451089338 54.77628786 0.880309629

Division (15) 6-5 y = a + b√x -35.28792636 70.05992049 0.849104483

Division (16) 6-1 y = a + b. ln(x) 40.44178744 34.93124258 0.571360974

As shown in Figure (6.22) the curves for divisions classified as civil works such as
division (02), (03) and (04) start with quite moderate increasing rates. Meanwhile, the curves
for divisions (15) and (16) that represent electro-mechanical works start with a rapid increase.
This rapid increase can be attributed to the distribution of items’ budget over their relevant
construction activities. Where, the electro-mechanical first fix activities always have smaller
budgets than second or third fix activities. Also, the first fix activities often have
interdependencies with various disciplines that always cause time slippage and duration
overrun. Meanwhile, the third fix activities are always installed in a short time and during
one session. Therefore, contractors should plan and make the necessary coordination for
electro-mechanical first fix activities at earlier stages. On the other hand, the same
equipment from different vendors or brands may increase the assigned budget, but will not
have a tangible impact on the installation time.

174
 400

300
Actual Duration (days)

200

100

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Budget (1000 KD)
a) Division 02

250

200

150

100

50

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Budget (1000 KD)
b) Division 03

175
 180

160

140
Actual Duration (days)

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Budget (1000 KD)
c) Division 09

600

500
Actual Duration (days)

400

300

200

100

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Budget (1000 KD)
d) Division 15

176
 180

160

140
Actual Duration (days)

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Budget (1000 KD)
e) Division 16

Figure ‎6.22: Regression Models for the Relationship between Construction Activities’
Budgets and Actual Durations in Kuwait Classified by CSI Divisions: a) Division 02,
b) Division 03, c) Division 09, d) Division 15, and e) Division 16

177
 CHAPTER 7: PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND
VALIDATION

7.1. Introduction
During the course of the current study, lots of different analyses and procedures are
needed to be performed owing to studying large amounts of data for different projects in
different countries with different risks. Performing these procedures manually requires
colossal efforts and would have been time wasting. Therefore, developing a computer
program to automate these procedures was obligatory to achieve the required analyses or
studies. The first section in the current chapter introduces for the program’s components and
explains the program’s operation methodology. Then the second section validates the
proposed probability distribution patterns and the proposed regression models through using
our program.

7.2. Program Development

The author developed a custom program utilizing C-Sharp software package to carry out
the automation of creating curve fitting from MATLAB 2010b, and to automate simulation
process for scheduling through Microsoft Project 2010.The program has been designed
mainly to perform the following tasks: (1) organizing and allocating risks to the activities of
construction projects to prepare detailed time schedule loaded with risks; (2) automate
Microsoft project software to perform simulation for the scheduling process; (3) evaluate the
statistical parameters of the overall projects’ durations; (4) quantifying the most effective
risks with the highest potential impacts, and (5) automate MATLAB 2010b software package
to create curve fitting.

7.2.1. Preparation of Risks and Activities Data

The first task of the program is to prepare risks and projects in a special database that
facilitate for professionals and practitioners to recognize the risks in different countries
according to published researches. The entry of risks’ and projects’ data will be through two
distinct groups of interfaces as shown in Figures (7.1) and (7.2).

178
 The process of collecting and organizing risk’s and their reference’s data is divided into
three steps through three interfaces as shown in Figure (7.1). The first step is the preparation
of research data such as country, researcher, year of publishing, and institute. The second step
is to prepare risks’ categories or classifications according to the published in their relevant
researches. The third step is the preparation of risks characteristics such as risk severity and
frequency.

Figure ‎7.1: Data Entry Interfaces for Researches and Risks Data

In addition, the preparation process for projects and activities data is also divided into
three steps through three interfaces as shown in Figure (7.2). The first step is the preparation
of project’s data such as title, owner, contractual start and finish dates, and location of the
project. The second step is to prepare project’s activities and their characteristics such as title,
estimated duration, predecessors and their relevant CSI divisions. The third step is assigning
risks for each activity and the ratio of impact according to the contractor’s risk plan.
On the other hand, the program calculates the relative risks’ values on the level of the
project. The normalized risks’ values on each activity are then accumulated in order to
evaluate the activities that are exposed to higher levels of risk as shown in Figure (7.3). This
process assists projects’ managers and planning teams to focus on risky activities practically
based on reliable quantitative analysis. In addition, the program evaluates the most affecting
risks according to their contribution in the project’s total risks as shown in Figure (7.4). This
process assists the planning teams and managers to continue monitoring the risks with highest
impacts from the beginning of the project till the end.

179
 Figure ‎7.2: Data Entry Interfaces for Projects and Activities

Figure ‎7.3: Example for a Report of Risk Assigned to Activities

180
Figure ‎7.4: Example for a Report of Risks Contribution to the Overall Values of
Project’s Risks

181
7.2.2. Monte Carlo Simulation of the Scheduling Process
The second task of the program is to automate Microsoft Project Software in order to
simulate scheduling process according to random values assigned to each activity’s duration
as illustrated in Figure (7.5). The random values assigned to activities are generated
according to the selected probability density function. The statistical characteristics of PDF
such as mean values and standard deviations are extracted from the predefined regression
models as shown in Figure (7.6). The program then calculates the scheduling data and export
project’s overall duration and each activity total float (TF) and repeats the process for the
selected number of iterations. The extracted project’s overall durations are then analysed to
extract their statistical properties such as mean, minimum, maximum, standard deviations,
and percentile values. Furthermore, the program checks the best curve fitting for the
simulated project’s overall durations.

182
 START

Call No of Iteration Subroutine

Call Exported Activities to Excel

Subroutine

Call Selected Activities for

Simulation

Create Excel Workbook and

Sheet

Set Columns Headers = Act. ID

& Act. Title

t=task+1

Call Simulation & Scheduling

Subroutine

No
Export to Excel Sheet

No of Act. = All
Selected for Export

Yes

END

Figure ‎7.5: Flowchart for Overall Simulation and Scheduling Process

183
 START

Read No. of Iteration (n)

Run Simulation i = i+1

Select activity t=t+1

Read Country, CSI, Phase of Construction

Extract for Each Activity from Regression

Models
No

Read ED, PDF, and Extracted

No of Act. = All
No Activitie

Yes

Call Subroutine for Generating Random

Variable

Calculate Scheduling

Export Project's Duration & TF fro Each

Activity

No of Runs = No of
Iterations (n)

Yes

END

Figure ‎7.6: Flowchart for Detailed Process of Simulation and Scheduling Using
Microsoft Project Software

184
7.2.3. Evaluating Statistics and Curve Fitting of Activities or Projects
The third and fourth tasks for the program are to extract the statistical properties and to
evaluate the curve fitting for the project’s overall durations as shown in Figure (7.7). The
program used C-Sharp software to automate Matlab 2010b software package to create curve
fitting for any number of different cases.
This process was also used to create curve fittings for the extracted activities from real
projects to evaluate the best probability density function as shown in chapter 5 in the current
thesis. Figure (7.7) shows the graphical curve fitting analysis of the construction activities in
a single project in Kuwait. The project includes 66 different construction activities. Each
activity was repeated about 1271 times as the project contains 1271 similar houses as
discussed in chapter 5 of the current thesis. The graphical curve fitting analysis for these 66
activities is a time consuming process. Therefore, developing our custom program was
necessary and it was time and effort saving program.

Figure ‎7.7: Sample of Graphical Analysis and Curve Fitting by Automating MATLAB
Software

7.3. Validation of Regression Models on Deterministic Durations

Any model, whether simple or complex, is at risk for potential errors or defects.
Therefore, model validation process should be involved to test the model’s compatibility and

185
integrity over different scenarios or conditions. The validation process will help in assessing
the usage limitations and considerations that should be considered for future prediction of
projects. In addition, the model should be periodically reviewed against future practices and
technical literature to confirm that the model is still appropriate for the latest conditions and
is up to date with construction industry practices. Consequently, the concluded probability
distribution functions as well as the predictive regression models for representing activities’
durations should be tested through real completed projects. The projects that will be used for
testing and validating our study models and proposed values or probability distribution
functions shall include a variety of projects with different categories such as size of the
project, location, type of work, owner’s degree, and contractor’s classification. Furthermore,
contracting, and real estate companies need to validate their own models to keep pace with
changes in construction industry dynamics and variation.
The predictive durations based on our suggested regression models were extracted and
implemented on about two projects in Kuwait, one project in Saudi Arabia, and two projects
in Oman as illustrated in Table (7.1). Through the validation process included five steps as
follows
1. Extracting the estimated durations for all activities from primavera software.
2. Modifying the durations for all activities based on suggested regression models in
chapter six.
3. Reload the modified durations into the Primavera software.
4. Run the scheduling process for the project in Primavera and extract the project’s
overall duration.
5. Compare the extracted duration from step four with the actual duration of the project.
The review of the results shows that the models could be implemented successfully and
accurately in Kuwait for conventionally estimated durations greater than 25 days. Meanwhile,
the estimated durations less than25 days could be modified by multiplying them by (1.5) as
shown in Table (7.1). In addition, the studied projects in Saudi Arabia and Oman show that
the regression models are valid for application on all conventionally estimated activities
greater than 15 days. Meanwhile, the estimated durations less than 15 days can be modified
by multiplying them by (1.5) as shown in Table (7.1).
The actual and the predicted overall durations for construction projects used during the
validation process are summarized in Table (7.1) As shown in Table (7.1), the variance
between the projects' actual durations and the predicted ones that are calculated based on the
extracted durations of activities from the proposed regression models, range between +5%.

186
 Table ‎7.1: Summary of Validating Regression Models on Deterministic Durations of
Real Projects in the Middle East

(A) (B) (C) (D) =(C)-(A) (E) =(C)-(B) Predicted / Predicted

Modification Estimated Actual Predicted Variance from Variance Estimated / Actual
Project Name Country
Factor Duration Duration Duration Estimated from Actual (C)/(A) (C)/(B)
(days) (days) (days) (days) (days) % %

01 Wataniya
Kuwait 627 1295 1260 -633 -35 201 97
Headquarter
02 Wafra Mall Kuwait 900 1513 2254 -1354 741 250 149

02 Wafra Mall Kuwait LT15 Days ×1.5 900 1513 1881 -981 368 209 124
02 Wafra Mall Kuwait LT20 Days ×1.5 900 1513 1653 -753 140 184 109
02 Wafra Mall Kuwait LT25 Days ×1.5 900 1513 1544 -644 31 172 102
03 Shinkhar
KSA LT10 Days ×1.5 530 1111 1241 -711 130 234 112
Palace
03 Shinkhar
KSA LT15 Days ×1.5 530 1111 1085 -555 -26 205 98
Palace
04 Hasik-
OMAN 1611 2147 2352 -741 205 146 110
Shuwaymiyah
04 Hasik-
OMAN LT15 Days ×1.5 1611 2147 2259 -648 112 140 105
Shuwaymiyah
05 Slalah
OMAN LT10 Days ×1.5 700 1702 1718 -1018 16 245 101
Complex
05 Slalah
OMAN LT15 Days ×1.5 700 1702 1626 -926 -76 232 96
Complex

7.4. Questionnaire of Minimizing Delays of Construction

Projects in the Middle East
The questionnaire was designed to meet the research aims to help in identifying the
practical solutions and method that can be applied to minimize the delays occurred in the
construction projects in the Middle East countries. The information presented and discussed
in the previous chapters helped to widen the author’s knowledge and create an awareness of
causes of construction delays, and impacts of these delays on construction projects. This
information helped in creating and developing the questionnaire successfully and
professionally in order to accomplish the research’s objectives. The aim of the questionnaire
is to identify the most effective factors that can be applied to minimize the delays or the
impacts of the delays on the construction projects in the Middle East Countries. In order to
present the questionnaire in a systematic way, it was decided to divide the questionnaire into
two sections:
1. The first section is concerned with the respondent’s backgrounds and
experiences. This contains general questions about the company, country,
profession, period of experience, sector, type of work, percentage of delayed

187
 projects, and the percentage of delay from the project’s estimated durations in
which the respondent has participated.
2. The second section includes the list of 41 methods of minimizing construction
delays. Five scales were identified to determine the effectiveness of each method.

7.4.1. Questionnaire Design and Distribution

The questionnaire was written in English and distributed and collected by email to
construction contractors, consultants, project management firms and owners. For speed of
response, the questionnaire was distributed personally and collected by hand for some cases.
This method was effective as there is direct communication between the researcher and
respondent. In addition, three points were considered in order to obtain a high level of
response:
 Providing a covering letter to do the following:
o Identify the type of research and explaining the purpose of the survey,
o Explain the purpose and the benefits of the study,
o Encourage the participants to fill in the questionnaire in tactful language,
o Inform the participants that the collected data and the findings of this
questionnaire will be used for academic purposes only.
 Presenting the questionnaire in a multi-options format only
 Keeping the questionnaire short (two pages only), but comprehensive enough, so
that it could be completed within 15 to 20 minutes.

7.4.2. The Survey Sample

The population of this research is composed of three types of practitioners: owners, and
their representatives, consultant engineers (the project supervisors), and contractors working
in the construction field in the Middle East countries and South Koreas. The survey covered
five countries: Egypt, Kuwait, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), United Arab Emirates
(UAE), and South Korea.

7.4.3. Questionnaire Data Collection

The total number of sent questionnaires is 411 as summarized in Table (7.2). The
questionnaire were addressed to the planning teams, construction managers, projects
managers, and projects engineers in their companies. The sent questionnaires are distributed

188
as follows: 48 questionnaires were sent practitioners or companies in Egypt, 74
questionnaires were sent to KSA, 209 questionnaires were sent to Kuwait, 52 questionnaires
were sent to UAE, and 28 questionnaires were sent to South Korea companies or
practitioners.
Out of the total sample only 53 questionnaires were received and they are distributed as
follows: 11 questionnaires were received from clients, 20 questionnaires were received from
consultants, and 22 questionnaires were received from contractors.

Table ‎7.2: Summary Description of the Collected Questionnaires

Sent Received Questionnaires

Country
Questionnaires Client Consultant Contractor Total
Egypt 48 1 2 2 5
KSA 74 0 9 2 11
Kuwait 209 9 8 13 30
UAE 52 1 1 1 3
South Korea 28 0 0 4 4
Total 411 11 20 22 53

7.4.4. Questionnaire Data Analysis

The data obtained from the survey were ordinal in nature as most of the responses were
ratings measured. Therefore, the collected data from the survey was analysed using
descriptive statistical analysis and relative index techniques. For the purpose of getting
accurate, reliable and fast analysis, Microsoft Access and Excel 2010 software packages for
windows were employed. The average score of effectiveness is calculated using relative
index analysis as represented by equation (7.1) as explained by [Falqi, 2004 and Braimah,
2008].

[∑𝑖=5
𝑖=1 𝑤𝑖 ∗𝑓𝑖 ]
𝐸𝐼 = ………………….…………………………………………….(7.1)
𝑛
Where EI is Effective Index,
fi is the frequency of response,
wi is the rating of each response (given by rating in the measurement scale divided by
number of points on it, which is 5 in our case),
and n is the total number of responses.
The analysis and ranking of data is shown in Table (7.3)

189
 Table ‎7.3: The Effectiveness Index for Methods of Minimizing Construction Delays in
the Middle East Ranked by All Respondents
Effectiveness
ID Question Description Index *
Rank
Q14 Secure adequate finance until project completion 3.636 1
Q06 Appoint competent Project Manager 3.591 2
Q08 Ensure that the design is complete, correct and prompt 3.455 3
Q13 Ensure effective strategic planning 3.386 4
Q35 Provide sufficient and competent personnel of contractor 3.296 5
Q40 Use of experienced subcontractors and suppliers 3.295 6
Q02 Allocation of sufficient time and money at the design phase 3.250 7
Compressing construction durations by adding more resources or working more than
Q10 3.115 8
one shift
Q21 Improve construction quality and reduce rework time 3.114 9
Q24 Improve inspection procedures and reduce inspection time 3.023 10
Q05 Competent and capable of client’s representative 2.955 11
Q12 Developing human resources in the construction industry 2.932 12
Q03 Apply fast tracking between project phases or tasks 2.887 13
Q30 Improve safety precautions during constructions 2.886 14
Q15 Ensure Availability of resources 2.841 15
Q38 Use of alternative / modern materials 2.795 16
Q11 Control site attendance 2.773 17
Q34 Provide sufficient and Competent personnel of consultant / designer 2.752 18
Q26 Improve material procurement procedures and reduce procurement durations 2.750 19
Q16 Ensure sufficient multidisciplinary and competent project team 2.794 20
Q37 Reduce the bureaucracy procedures 2.727 21
Q09 Comprehensive contract administration 2.659 22
Q20 Improve clear information, communication channels, and document control systems 2.616 23
Q27 Improve materials storage and handling 2.614 24
Q17 Expedite / Reduce payment procedures 2.569 25
Q18 Facilitating skilled manpower visas and work permits 2.567 26
Q22 Improve coordination between involved parties 2.545 27
Q29 Improve project planning and scheduling of project tasks 2.477 28
Q31 Improve site management and supervision 2.432 29
Q25 Improve lessons learned from past experience 2.386 30
Q36 Provide training to planning, scheduling and construction staff 2.364 31
Q23 Improve cost estimating methods 2.318 32
Applying continuous control on materials selection, manufacturing, and testing
Q04 2.259 33
before delivery to site
Q32 Improve studying / approving time for change orders 2.250 34
Q19 Improve acceleration of site clearance 2.185 35
Adopting a new approach to contract award procedures by giving less weight to
Q01 prices and more weight to the capabilities and past performance of consultants or 2.182 36
contractors.
Q41 Use of proper and modern construction equipment 2.068 37
Q07 Complete and accurate project feasibility study and site investigation 2.045 38
Q39 Use of appropriate and advanced construction methods 1.955 39
Q28 Improve progress and coordination meetings 1.818 40
Q33 Perform a preconstruction planning of resources required 1.795 41
* According to Equation (7.1), maximum = 5.

190
 It is clear that ensuring the adequate and available source of finance until the completion
of the project has the highest rank between the methods of minimizing the construction
delays in the Middle East as shown in Table (7.3). This result coincided with the results of
the quantitative analysis accomplished in chapter 4 of this study. Where, it was concluded
that the most effective cause of delay was the slow financial and payment procedures for the
main contractor and subsequently for the subcontractors and suppliers. The second and the
third ranked methods of minimizing the construction delays are providing competent project
manager and ensure effective strategic planning. This result coincide with the results
concluded form the analytical comparisons of causes of delay in the Middle East. The most
important category for causes of delay was the management, planning and scheduling.

191
 CHAPTER 8: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

8.1. Summary
The stochastic scheduling method is a technique that offers a practical way to model the
risks of construction projects in an efficient framework to monitor the participation and
impacts of these risks on the performance and progress of the construction projects. Not only
does the stochastic scheduling allow the positioning of activities in one single critical path,
but also it defines the other dominant paths in the project.
The methodology of quantitative analysis for uncertainty and risk impacts was
implemented through a comprehensive study on a number of real projects. This study
included three distinct subsidiary studies that were carried out on real data from various
construction projects situated in the Middle East countries such as Egypt, Kuwait, Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, and Oman. The multifarious projects include engineering,
procurement and construction of Hotels, High rise buildings, Hospitals, Highways, Stadiums,
and infrastructure projects.
The first study included a critical review and analytical comparisons of the causes of
delay all over the world. This study suggested two new classifications of the causes of delay
as a basis to compare. The first classification was according to the source of the risk, while
the second classification was according to the responsible party for the delay. The study
included the critical review for 62 researches about the causes of delay in 23 countries
distributed in four continents (Africa, Asia, Europa, and North America) in addition to the
Middle East area. The review covered approximately 2220 causes of delay with distinct,
similar, or even close definitions to each other. In addition, the first study included
a quantitative analysis of risks on the time performance of construction activities in Kuwait.
The analysis included 54 different risks extracted from previous studies in Kuwait. The
analysis was implemented on a single project, which has a repetitive nature, as the project
included 1271 similar housing buildings. The risks were assigned to seven distinct activities
that represent civil and electro-mechanical works.
The second study included comprehensive statistical analyses that have been carried out
on 20 large construction projects in the Middle East countries. The projects represent the
period between 1998 and 2013. Moreover, the projects included more than 125,000 activities
with a total budget of about fifteen Billion Egyptian Pounds (EGP) representing all

192
engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) activities for most trades of works. The
analysis included the curve fittings and goodness of fit for the estimated and the actual
durations of activities to evaluate the best probability density function for representing
activities’ durations within the simulation process.
The third study included developing various regression models by using real data from
thirteen large construction projects in Egypt, Kuwait and KSA including approximately
84,000 EPC activities representing most trades of works. The regression models delineate the
relationship between the estimated and the statistics of the actual durations of activities. The
regression models can be used to predict the expected durations based on the conventionally
estimated duration through conventional estimation techniques. Another set or regression
models were developed by utilizing 35,000 construction activities in Kuwait to predict the
activities’ durations based on their budgets.
Throughout the course of the study, many Software Packages such as Microsoft Access
2010, Primavera Project Planner 3.1, Primavera Enterprise 6.7, Microsoft Project 2010,
MATLAB 2010b, STATISTICA 10.0, Easy Fit 5.5 and IBM Statistics SPSS 22, have been
utilized in order to collect, sort, analyse and derive the statistical parameters for durations of
activities, checking goodness of fit, and developing regression models. In addition, the fast
and the efficient accomplishment of the study urged the author to design and develop
a comprehensive database and a special program to perform the following tasks: (1)
organizing and allocating risks to the activities of construction projects to prepare detailed
time schedule loaded with risks; (2) automating Microsoft project software to perform
simulation for the scheduling process; (3) evaluating the statistical parameters of the projects’
overall durations; (4) quantifying the most effective risks with the highest potential impacts,
and (5) automating MATLAB 2010b software package to create curve fitting.
The overall thesis results and conclusions urged to investigate the practical solutions and
methods of minimizing the causes of delay. For this purpose, a questionnaire was designed to
collect, analyze and evaluate the opinion of construction experts and professionals. The
questionnaire included 41 factors and was distributed among three types of practitioners:
owners, consultants and contractors working in the Middle East and South Korea. The
questionnaire was sent to 411 of construction practitioners in Egypt, Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, and South Korea. The total collected number of
questionnaires was 53 questionnaires distributed as follows: 11 from clients, 20 from
consultants and 22 from contractors.

193
8.2. Conclusions
The accomplished three studies concluded that in the construction industry, uncertainty
implementation and risk are very significant parameters and have to be considered when
a project is planned and scheduled. It provides a disciplined framework for proactive projects
managers to assess incessantly the impacts from surrounding conditions; determine risk
priorities; and implement the most suitable actions to deal with those risks. The following
conclusions can be deduced from the results of the three subsidiary studies:

8.2.1. Analytical Comparisons of Causes of Delay

1. Out of 54 risks that were applied to seven activities in a single project in Kuwait, only
thirteen risks were effectual and had direct impacts on the time performance of
activities.
2. Among the thirteen effectual risks, there were three risks that had the major influence
on the activities delay, as these three risks had about 65% of the total occurred delay
on the seven activities. The three risks are: (1) inadequate planning and time
scheduling; (2) slow financial and payment procedures; and (3) fluctuation of
productivity levels.
3. The 95-percentile delay ranges from 21% to 37% of the maximum delay. Therefore,
only 5% of activities had encountered unjustified excessive delays that range between
63% and 79% of their maximum delay.
4. The maximum percentages of the number of activities that encountered duration’s
overrun were observed for divisions (04): Masonry works, (08): Doors and windows,
and (10): Specialties works. Where, the divisions (04), (08), and (10) had duration
overrun of approximately 82%, 74% and 79% of their total number of activities,
respectively.
5. The ratios of number of delayed activities behind the planned early start, planned late
start, planned early finish, and planned late finish dates to the overall number of
activities are 68%, 30%, 79%, and 41%; respectively. However, the ratio of activities
that induced duration overrun to the total number of activities is 66%.
6. The analysis of the delayed activities with respect to their planned late start dates
illustrated that only 8% of the delayed activities can be recovered; however, there is
still remaining 92% that are either not recovered or partially recovered.

194
8.2.2. Evaluating the Best PDF to Represent Activities’ Durations

7. The maximum increase in the average of the actual duration values was found in
Division (03): Concrete works and Division (16): Electrical works that represents
about three and eight times their average of the estimated durations, respectively.
8. The ratios of the average of the actual durations of engineering - procurement
activities, construction activities, and the whole activities are 3, 8, and 5 times the
average of their estimated durations; respectively.
9. The graphical analysis, tests of goodness of fit, and Chi-Square tests for activities
have proved that the best probability density functions for representing the duration of
activities in construction projects are the Lognormal distribution followed by the
Gamma distribution, however utilizing the Beta or the Normal distributions shows
less confidence.
10. The ratio of the highest, actual activity duration to the corresponding mean duration is
always more than 4 for the projects in the Middle East, which differs from that was
suggested in the previous studies (1.25).

8.2.3. Developing Regression Models for Estimating Activities’ Durations

11. The shorter the estimated duration is, the higher duration slippage will be. Therefore,
contractors are advised to prepare the work breakdown structure for no less than about
15 days. This is based on observing that most regression models for construction
activities in Kuwait start with rapid increasing slope till estimated duration of about
15 days.
12. Forecasting project’s overall duration based on the proposed regression models and
utilizing lognormal distribution tends to be greater than that calculated using
conventionally estimated activities. Nevertheless, validation tests showed that the
forecasted projects’ durations are more realistic. Consequently, these forecasted
projects’ durations could oblige contractors to implement different methodologies and
alternative plans to reduce the project’s duration.
13. Over the estimated durations between 1 day and 30 days, the ratios (RD) that
represents the ratio between the average of the actual durations and their estimated
durations are very high as they range between 44 and 4. Besides, the highest values in
this range are observed in Kuwait as they range between 44 and 5.4.

195
 14. There is no proof of a direct relationship between the total float and the actual
duration slippage of activities. Notwithstanding, the ratio RD is almost small for
critical activities which have a zero total float.
15. The highest budget rate per actual duration is observed for division (05): Metal works,
and then for division (03): concrete works. However the lowest budget rates per actual
duration are divisions (15): Mechanical works and (16): Electrical works.
16. The regression models for electro-mechanical works start with a rapid increase
because the first fix activities always have smaller budgets than second or third fix
activities. Meanwhile, the first fix activities often have time slippage and duration
overrun. Therefore, contractors should plan and coordinate more accurately for
electro-mechanical first fix activities at early stages.

8.2.4. Methods of Minimizing Construction Delays

Among the 41 factors of reducing the construction delays, it was found that:

17. The most effective three factors are: secure adequate finance until project
completion; appoint competent project manager; ensure that design is complete,
correct, and prompt, with effectiveness percentages equal to 73%, 72% and 69%,
respectively.
18. The lowest three effective factors are: use of appropriate and advanced construction
methods; improve progress and coordination meetings; and perform a preconstruction
planning of required resources, with effectiveness percentages equal to 39%, 37% and
36%, respectively.

8.3. Suggestions for Future Research

The methodology of this thesis can be extended to cover:

1. Developing regression models for activities in similar types of construction projects.

2. Developing the curve fitting for representing causes of delay.
3. Conducting a quantitative analysis for using the detailed time schedule loaded with
risks as a tool to evaluate reliable contractors and awarding bids.
4. Using the detailed time schedule loaded with risks as a forensic tool for delay
analysis.

196
 REFERENCES

Abd El-Razek, M., Bassioni, H. and Mobarak, A., 2008, “Causes of Delay in Building
Construction Projects in Egypt”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE, Vol. 134, No. 11, pp.831-41.

AbdMajid, M. and McCaffer, R., 1998, “Factors of Non-Excusable Delays that Influence
Contractors' Performance”, Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, Vol.
14,No. 3, pp.42-49.

AbdAllah, E., 2008, “Dynamic Simulation for Optimal-Cost Scheduling of Construction

Projects”, PhD Thesis, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt.

Abdel-Gawad, M., Georgy, M. and Ibrahim, M.,2005, “Sources of Project Risks Under Joint
Ventures in Egypt”, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Colloquium on
Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, ICSGE. Cairo, Egypt.

Abdul Rashid, I. and Bakarman, B., 2005, “Risk Assessment and Analysis for Construction
Contractors in Egypt”, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Colloquium on
Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, ICSGE. Cairo, Egypt.

Abdullah, M., Abdul Rahman, I. and Abdul Azis, A., 2010, “Causes of Delay in MARA
Management Procurement Construction Projects”, Journal of Surveying, Construction
and Property, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.123–38.

Abdul-Malak, M., El-Saadi, M., and Abou-Zeid, M., 2002, “Process Model for
Administrating Construction Claims”, Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.84-94.

AbouRizk, S. and Halpin, D., 1992, “Statistical Properties of Construction Duration Data”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 118,No. 3,
pp.525-44.

AbouRizk, S., Halpin, D. and Wilson, J., 1991, “Visual Interactive Fitting of Beta
Distributions”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol.
117, No. 4, pp.589-605.

Abu Hammad, A., Alhaj Ali, S., Sweis, G., and Bashir, A., 2008, “Prediction Model for
Construction Cost and Duration in Jordan”, Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol.
2, No. 3, pp.250-66.

Abu Hammad, A., Alhaj Ali, S., Sweis, G., and Sweis, R., 2010, “Statistical Analysis on the
Cost and Duration of Public Building Projects”, Journal of Management in
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp.105-12.

197
Acharya, N., Lee, Y., Kim, S., and Lee, J., 2006, “Analysis of Construction Delay Factor:
A Korean Perspective”, Proceedings of the 7th Asia Pacific Industrial Engineering and
Management Systems Conference, Bangkok, Thailand.

Afshar, A., 2008, “A fuzzy-Based Model for Unbalanced Bidding in Construction”,

Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Construction in Developing
Countries (ICCIDC–I), Karachi, Pakistan.

Afshari, H., Khosravi, S., Ghorbanali, A., Borzabadi, M., and Valipour, M., 2011,
“Identification of Causes of Non-Excusable Delays of Construction Projects”,
Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on E-business, Management and
Economics, IACSIT Press, Hong Kong.

Agbulos, A. and Abou Rizk, S., 2003, “An Application of Lean Concepts and Simulation for
Drainage Operations Maintenance Crews”, Proceedings of the 35thWinter Simulation
Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.

Ahmed, S., Azhar, S. and Castillo, M., 2002, “Construction Delays in Florida: An Empirical
Study”, Final Report Submitted to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA),
Florida, Miami, USA.

AI-Mudlej, K., 1984, “Causes of Delays and Overruns of Construction Projects in Saudi
Arabia”, MSc. Thesis, Faculty of the College of Graduate Studies, King Fahd
University of Petroleum and Minerals, KFUPM, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

AI-Hazmi, M., 1987, “Causes of Delay in Large Building Construction Projects”, MSc.
Thesis, Faculty of the College of Graduate Studies, King Fahd University of
Petroleum and Minerals, KFUPM, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

Aibinu, A., 2008, “Managing Projects to Reduce Delivery Schedule”, Proceedings of the
International Conference on Building Education and Research (BEAR), University of
Salford, UK.

Aibinu, A., and Jagboro, G., 2002, “The Effects of Construction Delays on Project Delivery
in Nigerian Construction Industry”, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 20, pp.593-99.

Al-Salman, A., 2004, “Assessment of Risk Management Perceptions and Practices of

Construction Contractors in Saudi Arabia”, MSc. Thesis, Faculty of the College of
Graduate Studies, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, KFUPM,
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

Al-Bahar, J., and Crandall, K., 1990, “Systematic Risk Management Approach for
Construction Projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 3, pp.533-47.

198
Al-Ghafly, M., 1995, “Delay in the Construction of Public Utility Projects in Saudi Arabia”,
MSc. Thesis, Faculty of the College of Graduate Studies, King Fahd University of
Petroleum and Minerals, KFUPM, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

Aliabadizadeh, Y., 2009, “Evaluation of Ways to Recover Late Construction Projects”, MSc.
Thesis, Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park,
USA.

Al-Khalil, M. and Al-Ghafly, M., 1999, “Important Causes of Delay in Public Utility
Projects”, Journal of Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 17, No. 5,
pp.647-55.

Al-Kharashi, A. and Skitmore, M., 2009, “Causes of Delays in Saudi Arabian Public Sector
Construction Projects”, Journal of Construction Management and Economics, Vol.
27, No. 1, pp.3-23.

Al-Momani, A., 2000, “Construction Delay: A Quantitative Analysis”, International Journal

of Project Management, Vol. 188, pp.51-59.

Al-Najjar, J., 2008, “Factors Influencing Time and Cost Overruns on Construction Projects in
the Gaza Strip”, MSc. Thesis, Civil Engineering – Construction Management, The
Islamic University of Gaza, Gaza, Palestine.

Al-Sultan, A., 1989, “Determination of Construction Contract Duration for Public Projects in
Saudi Arabia”, MSc. Thesis, Faculty of the College of Graduate Studies, King Fahd
University of Petroleum and Minerals, KFUPM, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

Al-Tabtabai, H., 2002, “Causes for Delays in Construction Projects in Kuwait”, Engineering
Journal of the University of Qatar, Vol. 15, pp.19-37..

Alwi, S., Hampson, K. and Mohamed, S., 2002, “Factors Influencing Contractor Performance
in Indonesia: A Study of Non Value-Adding Activities”, Proceedings of the
International Conference on Advancement in Design, Construction, Construction
Management and Maintenance of Building Structure, Bali, Indonesia.

Alwi, S. and Hampson, K., 2003, “Identifying the Important Causes of Delays in Building
Construction Projects”, Proceedings of The 9th East Asia-Pacific Conference on
Structural Engineering and Construction, Bali, Indonesia.

Ammar, M., Elsamdony, A., and Rabie, A., 2009, “Risk Allocation and Mitigation in The
Egyptian Barrage Projects”, Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference
on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, ICSGE. Cairo, Egypt.

199
Apolot, R., Alinaitwe, H. and Tindiwensi, D., 2010, “An Investigation into the Causes of
Delay and Cost Overrun in Uganda’s Public Sector Construction Projects”,
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Advances in Engineering and
Technology.

Asif, M., 2003, “Critical Success Factor for Different Project Objectives”, MSc. Thesis,
Faculty of the College of Graduate Studies, King Fahd University of Petroleum and
Minerals, KFUPM, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

Assaf, S., Al-Khalil, M. and A-Hazmi, M., 1995, “Causes of Delay in Large Building
Construction Projects”, Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 11, No.
2, pp. 45-50.

Assaf, S., and Al-Hejji, S., 2006, “Causes of Delay in Large Construction Projects”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp.349–57.

Awawdeh, S., 1985, “An Investigation into Delays and Cost Overrun in Saudi Arabia”, MSc.
Thesis, Faculty of the College of Graduate Studies, King Fahd University of
Petroleum and Minerals, KFUPM, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

Balci, O., 1990, “Guidelines for Successful Simulation Studies”, Proceedings of the 22nd
Winter Simulation Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.

Ballard, G., 1999, “Improving Work Flow Reliability”, Proceedings of the 7th Conference of
the International Group for Lean Construction, Berkeley, California, USA.

Benjamin, J. and Cornell, C., 1970, Probability, Statistics, and Decision, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York, USA.

bin-Yusof, M., binti Mohammad, N. and bin Mat Derus, Z., 2007, “Excusable and
Compensable Delays in the Construction of Building Project - A Study in the States
of Selangor and Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia”, The Institution of
Engineers Journal, Malaysia, Vol. 68, No. 4, pp.21-26.

Biruk, S. and Jaskowski, P., 2010, “On the Problems of Modelling and Reliability
Assessment of Construction Projects Duration”, Journal of International Group on
Reliability, Vol. 4, No. 19, pp.6-14.

Bonke, S. and Olsen, I., 2010, “Introducing Partnering in Denmark – Lessons Learned
Applying Public Private Partnerships as an Innovation Platform”, Proceedings of the
18th CIB World Building Congress, The Lowry, Salford Quays, United Kingdom.

Braimah, N., 2008,“An Investigation into the Use of Construction Delay and Disruption
Analysis Methodologies”, PhD Thesis, University of Wolverhampton,
Wolverhampton, United Kingdom.

200
Bubshait, A. and Cunningham, M., 1998,“Comparison of Delay Analysis Methodologies”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 4,
pp.315-22.

Bustani, S., and Izam, Y., 1999, “Predictive Duration Models for Building Construction
Projects in Nigeria”, Journal of Environmental Sciences, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.131-135.

Callahan, M., Quackenbush, D., and Rowings, J., 1992, Construction Project Scheduling,
McGraw-Hill.

Chan, D., and Kumaraswamy, M., 1997, “A Comparative Study of Causes of Time Overruns
in Hong Kong Construction Projects”, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.55–63.

Chan, D,. and Kumaraswamy, M., 2002, “Compressing Construction Durations: Lessons
Learned from Hong Kong Building Projects”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.23-35.

Chehade, Z., May, 2005, “Towards the Determination of the Construction Contract Duration
for Building Projects Prior to the Bidding Stage”, Master of Engineering
Management, Engineering Management Program, Faculty of Engineering and
Architecture, American University of Beirut, Lebanon.

Cheng, T., and Wu, H., 2006, “Simulation with Fuzzy Durations”, International Journal of
Applied Science and Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.189-203.

Choudhury, I., 2012, “A Study of the Factors of Construction Time for Educational Projects
in Texas”, Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual
Conference, ASEE, San Antonio, Texas, USA.

Cleland, D., 2004, Field Guide to Project Management, Second Edition, John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., USA.

Cooper, D., Grey, S., Raymond, G., and Walker, P., 2005, Project Risk Management
Guidelines; Managing Risk in Large Projects and Complex Procurements, John Wiley
and Sons Ltd., London, UK.

Couto, J., 2009, “The Public Institutions Performance is One of Main Portuguese
Construction Reasons for Delays”, Proceedings of the 13th International Congress on
Project Engineering, Badajoz, Spain.

Couto, J., and Teixeira, J., 2007, “The Evaluation of the Delays in the Portuguese
Construction”, Proceedings of the CIB World Building Congress 2007, Cape Town,
South Africa.

201
Csébfalvi, A., 2012, “A Unified Model for Resource-Constrained Project Scheduling
Problem with Uncertain Activity Durations”, International Journal of Optimization in
Civil Engineering, Vol. 02, No. 03, pp.341-55.

Daly, F., Hand, J., Jones, C., Lunn, D., McConway, K., 1995, Elements of Statistics, Pearson
Education Limited, Edinburgh Gate, Harlow, England.

delCaño, A., and de la Cruz, M., 2002, “Integrated Methodology for Project Risk
Management”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol.
128, No. 6, pp.473-85.

Dikmen, I., Birgonul, M., Anac, C., Tah, J., Aouad, G., 2008, “Learning from Risks: A Tool
for Post-Project Risk Assessment”, Automation in Construction Journal, Vol. 18, No.
1, pp.42-50.

El-Diraby, T., 1993, “Construction Risk Assessment by Fuzzy Set Theory – an Introductory
Computer Model for Expert Systems”, MSc. Thesis, Faculty of Engineering - Zagazig
University, Zagazig, Egypt.

El-Kholy, A., 2013, “Modelling Delay Percentage of Construction Projects in Egypt Using
Statistical-Fuzzy Approach”, IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering
(IOSR-JMCE), Vol. 7, No. 5, pp.47-58.

El-Sayegh, S., 2008, “Risk Assessment and Allocation in the UAE Construction Industry”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp.431-38.

Enshassi, A. and Abu Mosa, J., 2008, “Risk Management in Building Projects: Owners’
Perspective”, The Islamic University Journal (Series of Natural Studies and
Engineering), Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.95-123.

Enshassi, A., Mohamed, S. and Abushaban, S., 2009, “Factors Affecting The Performance of
Construction Projects in The Gaza Strip”, Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp.269-80.

Erikson, C., 1979, “Risk-Sharing in Construction Contracts”, PhD Thesis, Department of

Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois, USA.

Esquenazi, A. and Sacks, R., 2006, “Evaluation of Lean Improvements in Residential

Construction Using Computer Simulation”, Proceedings of the International Group
for Lean Construction, IGLC-14, Santiago, Chile.

Falqi, I., 2004, “Delays in Project Completion: A Comparative Study of Construction Delay
Factors in Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom”, MSc. Thesis, School of the Built
Environment, Heriot-Watt University, UK.

202
Fang, D., Li, M., Fong, P., and Shen, L., 2004, “Risks in Chinese Construction Market –
Contractors’ Perspective”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 6, pp.853-61.

Faridi, A.,and El-Sayegh, S., 2006, “Significant Factors Causing Delay in the UAE
Construction Industry”, Journal of Construction Management and Economics, Vol.
24, pp.1167–1176.

Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, K., and Buhl, S., 2003, “How Common and How Large Are Cost
Overruns in Transport Infrastructure Projects?”, Journal of Transport Reviews, Vol.
23, No. 1, pp.71-88.

Fugar, F., and Agyakwah-Baah, A., 2010, “Delays in Building Construction Projects in
Ghana”, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 10,
pp.103-16.

Global Insight, I., 2010, Construction Spending Analysis and Forecast for Egypt. [Online]
Global Insight, Inc. Available at: HYPERLINK "http://www.construction-
int.com/article/construction-spending-analysis-and-forecast-for-egypt.html"
http://www.construction-int.com/article/construction-spending-analysis-and-forecast-
for-egypt.html [Accessed 26 Mar 2013].

Graham, D., Smith, S. and Crapper, M., 2004, “Improving Concrete Placement Simulation
With A Case-Based Reasoning Input”, Journal of Civil Engineering and
Environmental Systems, Vol. 21, No. 02, pp.137-50.

Guo, W., 2004,“Development of a Framework for Preliminary Risk Analysis in

Transportation Projects”, MSc. Thesis, Civil Engineering, Faculty of Worcester
Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, USA‎.

Halpin, D., 1977, “CYCLONE - Method for Modelling Job Site Processes”, Journal of the
Construction Division, ASCE, Vol. 103, No. 3, pp.489–99.

Hancher, D., and Rowing, R., 1981, “Sitting Highway Construction Contract Duration”,
Journal of the Construction Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. 2, pp.169-79.

Harmelink, D., and Bernal, M., 1998, “Simulating Haul Durations for Linear Scheduling”,
Proceedings of the 30thWinter Simulation Conference, Washington, DC, USA.

Haseeb, M., Xinhai-L., Bibi, A., Maloof-ud, D., and Rabbani, W., 2011, “Problems of
Projects and Effects of Delays in the Construction Industry of Pakistan”, Australian
Journal of Business and Management Research, Vol. 1, No. 5, pp.41-50.

Hendrickson, C., Martinelli, D. and Rehak, D., 1987, “Hierarchical Rule-Based Activity
Duration Estimation”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE,
Vol. 113, No. 2, pp.288-301.

203
Jaafari, A., 1990, “Surviving Failures: The Lessons from a Field Study”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 1, pp.68-86.

Jacinto, C., 2002, “Discrete Event Simulation for the Risk of Development of an Oil Field”,
Proceedings of the 34th Winter Simulation Conference. San Diego, California, USA.

Kaliba, C., Muya, M. and Mumba, K., 2009, “Cost Escalation and Schedule Delays in Road
Construction Projects in Zambia”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol.
27, No. 5, pp.522-31.

Kannan, G., Schmitz, L. and Larsen, C., 2000, “An Industry Perspective on the Role of
Equipment-Based Earthmoving Simulation”, Proceedings of the 32nd Winter
Simulation Conference. Orlando, USA.

Kartam, N. and Kartam, S., 2001, “Risk and its Management in the Kuwaiti Construction
Industry: Contractors’ Perspective”, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 19, No. 6, pp.325-35.

Kelleher, A., 2004, “An Investigation of the Expanding Role of the Critical Path Method by
ENR's Top 400 Contractors”, MSc. Thesis, Faculty of Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University, Blacksburg, USA.

Kohler, N. and Moffatt, S., 2003, “Life-Cycle Analysis of the Built Environment”, Journal of
Industry and Environment, (Sustainable building and construction), pp.04-94.

Koushki, P., Al-Rashid, K. and Kartam, N., 2005, “Delays and Cost Increases in the
Construction of Private Residential Projects in Kuwait”, Journal of Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 23, pp.285-94.

Lana, E., 2006, “Stochastic Critical Path”, Proceedings of the 2006 Crystal Ball User
Conference.

Laufer, A. and Tucker, R., 1987, “Is Construction Project Planning Really Doing Its Job?
A Critical Examination of Focus, Role and Process”, Journal of Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 5, pp.243-66.

Lee, D., 2005, “Probability of Project Completion Using Stochastic Project Scheduling
Simulation”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 131,
No. 3, pp.310-18.

Lee, D., Arditi, D., and Son, C., 2013, “The Probability Distribution of Project Completion
Times in Simulation-Based Scheduling”, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 17,
No. 4, pp.638-45.

Leemis, L., Duggan, M., Drew, J., Mallozzi, J., and Connell, K., 2006, “Algorithms to
Calculate the Distribution of the Longest Path Length of a Stochastic Activity
Network with Continuous Activity Durations”, www.interscience.wiley, pp.143–65.

204
Le-Hoai, L., Lee, D., and Lee, J., 2008, “Delay and Cost Overruns in Vietnam Large
Construction Projects: A Comparison with Other Selected Countries”, KSCE Journal
of Civil Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp.367-77.

Long, N., Ogunlana, O., Quang T., and Lam, C., 2004, “Large Construction Projects in
Developing Countries, a Case Study from Vietnam”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 22, pp.553-61.

Lucko, G., Swaminathan, K., Benjamin, P.. and Madden, M.G., 2009, “Rapid Deployment of
Simulation Models for Building Construction Applications”, Proceedings of the 41st
Winter Simulation Conference. Austin, USA.

Lyer, K., and Jha, K., 2006, “Critical Factors Affecting Schedule Performance: Evidence
from Indian Construction Projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE, Vol. 132,No. 8, pp.871-81.

Mahdavinejad, M. and Molaee, M., 2011, “The Result of Delayed Projects on Publics’
Satisfaction in Tehran”, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
Construction and Project Management, Singapore.

Majid, I., 2006, “Causes and Effects of Delays in Aceh Construction Industry”, MSc. Thesis,
Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor Bahru,
Malaysia.

Martin, J., Burrows, T., and Pegg, I., 2006, “Predicting Construction Duration of Building
Projects”, Proceedings of the XXIII International FIG Congress, Munich, Germany.

Marzouk, M., Zein El-Dein, H., and El-Said, M., 2006, “Bridge_ Sim: Framework For
Planning and Optimizing Bridge Deck Construction Using Computer Simulation”,
Proceedings of the 38th Winter Simulation Conference. Monterey, California, USA.

Marzouk, M., Zein El-Dein, H., and El-Said, M., 2007, “Application of Computer Simulation
to Construction of Incremental Launching Bridges”, Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management, Vol. XIII, pp.27–36.

Marzouk, M., El-Mesteckawi, L., and Ibrahim, M., 2007, “Construction Disputes in Egypt:
Causes and Methodologies for Resolution”, Proceedings of the Twelfth International
Colloquium on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, ICSGE. Cairo, Egypt.

Marzouk, M., and El-Rasas, T., 2014, “Analysing Delay Causes in Egyptian Construction
Projects”, Journal of Advanced Research, Vol. 5, pp.49-55.

McCabe, B., 2003, “Monte Carlo Simulation for Schedule Risks”, Proceedings of the 35th
Winter Simulation Conference. New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.

205
Menesi, W., 2007, “Construction Delay Analysis under Multiple Baseline Updates”, Master
of Applied Science Thesis, Civil Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,
Ontario, Canada.

Mezher, T., and Tawil, W., 1998, “Factors of Non-excusable Delays that Influence
Contractors’ Performance”, Journal of Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, Vol. 5,No. 3, pp.252 - 260.

Moavenzadeh, F., and Rossow, J., 1975, “The Construction Industry in Developing
Countries”, Report for Technology Adaptation Program, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, USA.

Mojahed, S., 2005, “A Project Improvement System for Effective Management of

Construction Projects”, PhD Thesis, Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State
University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, Baton Rouge, USA.

Molak, V., 1997, Fundamentals of Risk Analysis and Risk Management, Lewis Publishers,
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.

Montgomery, D., and Runger, G., 2003, Applied Statistics and Probability for Engineers,
Third Edition, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., USA.

Moosavi, S., 2012, “Assessment and Evaluation of Detailed Schedules in Building

Construction”, Master of Applied Science, Building, Civil and Environmental
Engineering, School of Graduate Studies, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada.

Morris, P., 1994, The Management of Projects, Thomas Telford Services Ltd., London, UK.

Motaleb, O. and Kishk, M., 2010, “An Investigation into Causes and Effects of Construction
Delays in UAE”, Proceedings of the 26th Annual ARCOM Conference, Leeds, UK.

Mulholland, B. and Christian, J., 1999, “Risk Assessment in Construction Schedules”,

Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 125, No. 1, pp.8-
15.

Nasir, D., McCabe, B. and Hartono, L., 2003, “Evaluating Risk in Construction–Schedule
Model ERIC–S: Construction Schedule Risk Model”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 129, No. 5, pp.518-827.

Ng, S., Mak, M., Skitmore, R., Lam, K., and Varnam, M., 2001, “The Predictive Ability of
Bromilow’s Time-Cost Model”, Journal of Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.165-73.

Oberkampf, L., DeLand, M., Rutherford, M., Diegert, V., and Alvin, F., 2000, “Estimation of
Total Uncertainty in Modelling and Simulation”, Report for U.S. Department of
Energy, Sandia National Laboratories, California, USA.

206
Odabaşi, E., 2009, “Models for Estimating Construction Duration: An Application for
Selected Buildings on the METU Campus”, MSc. Thesis, Graduate School of Natural
and Applied Sciences, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey‎.

Odeh, A., and Battaineh, H., 2002, “Causes of Construction Delay: Traditional Contracts”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.67-73.

Ogunlana, S., Promkuntong, K., and Jearkjirm, V., 1996, “Construction Delays in a Fast-
Growing Economy: Comparing Thailand with Other Economies”, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp.37–45.

Ogunsemi, D., and Jagboro, G., 2006, “Time-Cost Model for Building Projects in Nigeria”,
Journal of Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.253-58.

Ogwueleka, A., 2001, “The Critical Success Factors Influencing Project Performance in
Nigeria”, International Journal of Management Science and Engineering
Management, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp.343-49.

Okumbe, J., and Verster, J., 2008, “Construction Industry Perspective on Causes and Effects
of Delays in South Africa”, Proceedings of The Construction and Building Research
Conference of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Dublin Institute of
Technology.

Olupolola, F., Emmanuel, O., Adeniyi, M., and Kamaldeen, A., 2010, “Factors Affecting the
Time Performance of Building Projects”, Proceedings of the Construction, Building
and Real Estate Research Conference of The Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors. Dauphine Université, Paris, France.

Omoregie, A., and Radford, D., 2006, “Infrastructure Delays and Cost Escalation: Causes and
Effects in Nigeria”, [Online] Rotterdam (Netherlands) Available at: HYPERLINK
"http://www.irb.fraunhofer.de/CIBlibrary/search-quick-result-
list.jsp?A&idSuche=CIB+DC8999" http://www.irb.fraunhofer.de/CIBlibrary/search-
quick-result-list.jsp?AandidSuche=CIB+DC8999 [Accessed 2010].

Panthi, K., 2007, “Prioritizing and Estimating Hydropower Project Construction Risks:
A Case Study of Nyadi Hydropower Project”, Proceedings of the 2nd Annual
Himalayan Policy Research Conference, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

Pham, H., 2006, Springer Handbook of Engineering Statistics, Springer-Verlag London

Limited, London, UK.

PMI., 2012, A Guide to The Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK 5 th ®

Guide), Fifth Edition, Project Management Institute, Inc., Pennsylvania, USA.

Ponce de Leon, G., 1987, “Theories of Concurrent Delays”, AACE Transactions.

207
Pourrostam, T. and Ismail, A., 2011, “Significant Factors Causing and Effects of Delay in
Iranian Construction Projects”, Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences,
Vol. 7, No. 5, pp.450-56.

Prateapusanond, A., 2003, “A Comprehensive Practice of Total Float Pre-Allocation and

Management for the Application of a CPM-Based Construction Contract”, PhD
Thesis, Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,
USA.

Sakka, Z., and El-Sayegh, S., 2007, “Float Consumption Impact on Cost and Schedule in the
Construction Industry”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
ASCE, Vol. 133,No. 2, pp.124-30.

Sambasivan, M., and Soon, Y., 2007, “Causes and Effects of Delays in Malaysian
Construction Industry”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25,No. 5,
pp.517–26.

Schexnayder, C., Knutson, K. and Fente, J., 2005, “Describing a Beta Probability
Distribution Function for Construction Simulation”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 131,No. 2, pp.221-29.

Shaikh, A., Muree, M., and Soomro, A., 2010, “Identification of Critical Delay Factors in
Construction”, Sindh University Research Journal (Science Series), Vol. 42,No. 2,
pp.11-14.

Shen, Y. and Rowlinson, S., 2010, “Study On The Risk Appraisal Framework Of PPP In
Yangtze River Delta Region”, Proceedings of the 18th CIB World Building Congress,
The Lowry, Salford Quays, UK.

Shi, J., 1997, “A Conceptual Activity Cycle-Based Simulation Modelling Method”,

Proceedings of the 29th Winter Simulation Conference. Atlanta, USA.

Soehodho, S., Susantono, B. and Prasetya, S., 2003, “Infrisk Simulation in Risk Influence of
Investing Toll Road Projects”, Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for
Transportation Studies.

Song, L., Al-Battaineh, H., and Abou Rizk, S., 2005, “Modelling Uncertainty with an
Integrated Simulation System”, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 32,
pp.533-42.

Soong, T., 2004, Fundamentals of Probability and Statistics for Engineers, John Wiley and
Sons Ltd., Buffalo, New York, USA.

208
Strong, K., Kandil, A., and Maze, T., 2007, “Flexible Start / Fixed Duration Contracting for
Construction of Transportation Projects: A Case Study of the Paseo Bridge
Maintenance Project”, Report for Centre of Transportation Research and Education,
Iowa State University, Ames, USA.

Tumi,.H., Omran, A. and Pakir, K., 2009, “Causes of Delay in Construction Industry in
Libya”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Administration and Business.
Bucharest, Romania.

Uher, T., 2003, Programming and Scheduling Techniques, 1st edition, University of New
South Wales Press Ltd., Sydney, Australia.

Walewski, J. and Gibson, G., 2003, “International Project Risk Assessment: Methods,
Procedures, and Critical Factors”, Centre Construction Industry Studies (CCIS) and
Construction Industry Institute (CII), the University of Texas at Austin, Austin, USA.

Walpole, R., Myers, R., Myers, S., and Ye, K., 2012, Probability and Statistics for Engineers
and Scientists, Ninth Edition, Prentice Hall Inc., Boston, USA.

Wei, K., 2010, “Causes, Effects and Methods of Minimizing Delays in Construction
Projects”, BSc. Report, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
Skudai, Malaysia.

Wiguna, I., and Scott, S., 2005a, “Analysing the Risks Affecting Construction Delay and
Cost Overruns in Indonesia Building Projects”, Proceedings of the 3rd International
Conference on Innovation in Architecture, Engineering and Construction. Rotterdam,
Netherlands.

Wiguna, I. and Scott, S., 2005b, “Nature of the Critical Risk Factors Affecting Project
Performance in Indonesian Building Contracts”, Proceedings of the 21st Annual
ARCOM Conference. London, UK.

Willis, E., 1986, Scheduling construction projects, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Canada.

Wu, J., and Soibelman, L., 2006, “Advanced Scheduling Data Preparation, Representation,
and Analysis in Support of Construction Planning and Scheduling”, Proceedings of
the Joint International Conference on Computing and Decision Making in Civil and
Building Engineering. Montréal, Canada.

Yoe, C., 2009, “Risk Analysis Framework for Cost Estimation”, Report for U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria, USA.

Youssef, W., 2005, “Effect of Spatial Variability of Soil Properties on Safety Factors of
Cantilever Retaining Walls”, MSc. Thesis, Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University,
Giza, Egypt.

209
Zaneldin, E., 2005, “AOA - Based Modelling and Simulation of Construction Operations”,
International Journal of Simulation Modelling, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.184-95.

Zayed, T., and Halpin, D., 2000, “Simulation as a Tool for Resource Management”,
Proceedings of the 32nd Winter Simulation Conference, Orlando, USA.

Zayed, T., and Halpin, D., 2001, “Simulation of Bored Pile Construction”, Proceedings of the
33rd Winter Simulation Conference, Arlington, USA.

Zayed, T., and Halpin, D., 2004, “Simulation as a Tool for Pile Productivity Assessment”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 3,
pp.394 -404.

Zhang, H., Tam, C., and Li, H., 2005, “Modelling Uncertain Activity Duration by Fuzzy
Number and Discrete - Event Simulation”, European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 164, No. 3, pp.715–29.

210
 APPENDIX I: Example Project Illustrating Use of the Developed
Program
This section of the thesis will describe a full example that explain how to use and apply
the designed program to prepare a risk loaded schedule and predict the overall project
durations based on the concluded PDF and the developed regression models. As explained
earlier in chapter 6, it is expected to that the overall duration based on the developed
regression models will be greater than that calculated based on conventionally estimated
durations for activities. In addition, we will apply the methods of minimizing the construction
delays as evaluated from the preformed questionnaire in chapter 7 to reduce the impact of
risks on activities.
The studied project includes the engineering, procurement, and construction of an
administrative building that consists of three floors (basement, ground floor, first floor), and
roof. The owner aims to get his project completed in two years. While the deterministic
scheduling shows that the average overall duration of the project is 480 days. However, the
confidence level in the deterministic scheduling is not known and unrealistic. Therefore, the
project management team will apply the methodology evaluated in this thesis and will use the
designed program to study the impact of risks on the overall project duration.
The project includes 41 activities that represent both civil and electromechanical
activities such as earth works, concrete works, finishing works, electromechanical works, and
external landscaping works. The estimated durations and the relationships between activities
are shown in Table (A.1).

211
 Table A.1: Activities and Relationships of the Example Project
Task ID Task Name Duration Predecessors
(Days)
1 ACT001 - Project Start Date 0
2 ACT002 - Materials Submittals & Approvals 90 1SS+14 days
3 ACT003 - Materials Procurements 120 2SS+30 days
4 ACT004 - Shop Drawings Sub & Approvals For 30 1SS+14 days
Foundation
5 ACT005 - Shop drawings Sub & Approvals Basement 45 1SS+20 days

6 ACT006 - Shop drawings Sub & Approvals For 45 1SS+40 days

Ground Floor
7 ACT007 - Shop drawings Sub & Approvals For 1st Floor 60 1SS+60 days

8 ACT008 - Earth Works - Foundation Level 30 1SS+8 days

9 ACT009 - Raft Foundation - Foundation Level 26 8,4SS+14 days,2SS+14 days
10 ACT010 - External Walls - Basement Floor 25 9,5SS+14 days
11 ACT011 - Vertical Element - Basement Floor 25 9,5SS+14 days
12 ACT012 - Hr Element - Basement Floor 30 11SS+5 days,10SS+5
days,5SS+14 days
13 ACT013 - Block Work - Basement Floor 21 12FS+14 days
14 ACT014 - Wall Finishing - Basement Floor 30 13
15 ACT015 - Ceiling Finishes - Basement Floor 40 14,18FF
16 ACT016 - Floor Finishing - Basement Floor 30 14,15
17 ACT017 - Electomechanical 1st Fix - Basement 30 13,14FF-14 days
18 ACT018 - Electomechanical 2nd Fix - Basement 35 17,14
19 ACT019 - Electomechanical 3rd Fix - Basement 21 18,15,16,5FF+7 days,3FF+7
days
20 ACT020 - Vertical Element - Ground Floor 25 12,6SS+14 days
21 ACT021 - Hr Element - Ground Floor 30 20,6SS+14 days
22 ACT022 - Block Work - Ground Floor 30 21FS+14 days
23 ACT023 - Wall Finishing - Ground Floor 40 22
24 ACT024 - Ceiling Finishing - Ground Floor 45 23,27FF
25 ACT025 - Floor Finishing - Ground Floor 30 23,24
26 ACT026 - Electomechanical 1st Fix - Ground Floor 30 22,23FF-14 days

27 ACT027 - Electomechanical 2nd Fix - Ground Floor 35 26,23

28 ACT028 - Electomechanical 3rd Fix - Ground Floor 21 27,24,25,6FF+7 days,3FF+7

days
29 ACT029 - Vertical Element - First Floor 30 21,7SS+14 days
30 ACT030 - Hr Element - First Floor 35 29
31 ACT031 - Block Work - First Floor 30 30FS+14 days
32 ACT032 - Wall Finishing - First Floor 40 31
33 ACT033 - Ceiling Finishing - First Floor 50 32,36FF

34 ACT034 - Floor Finishing - First Floor 40 32,33SS

35 ACT035 - Electomechanical 1st Fix - First Floor 30 31,32FF-14 days
36 ACT036 - Electomechanical 2nd Fix - First Floor 40 35,32

37 ACT037 - Electomechanical 3rd Fix - First Floor 21 36,33,34,7FF+7 days,3FF+7

days
38 ACT038 - Roofing Works 21 30FF+14 days,37FF
39 ACT039 - External Elevations Works 60 30FF+14 days,34SS,25SS
40 ACT040 - External Landscape Works 45 39SS+14 days
41 ACT041 - Project End Date 0 23,25,24,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,34,
33,35,36,37,38,39,40

212
 The Planned Start Date: 1st January 2013
The Deterministic End Date: 26 th April 2014
The Deterministic Project Duration: 480 days.
After the risks are assigned to each activity, the program will calculate the contribution
of each risk to the total risks. The contribution of each risk is represented by relative risk
index. The total value and relative values for all assigned risks to each activity are shown in
Table (A.2). In addition, the program will evaluate all risks assigned to all activities as shown
in Table (A.3).
Table A.2: Values and Relative Index of Risks Assigned to Activities
Activity Activity Title Risk Title Risk Index Relative
ID Risk Index
%
02 ACT002 - Materials Slow decision-making process 0.88 0.15
Submittals & Approvals Lack of planning and scheduling 0.71 0.12
Design Changes by owner's 0.76 0.13
Uncooperative management 0.51 0.09
Poor coordination with regulatory 0.74 0.13
agencies
Poor scheduling of subcontractors 0.7 0.12
Inflexibility toward alternatives 0.73 0.12
Apprehensive towards contractor's 0.86 0.15
favouritism
Risk allocation mainly on the 0.86 0.15
contractor.
Miss-interpretation of drawings and 0.54 0.09
specifications
Inefficient Shop drawings approval 0 0.00
Lack of design drawings coordination 0.2 0.03
Design drawings and specifications do 0.63 0.11
not match
Inaccurate project estimate 0.58 0.10
Sum of 02 8.7 1.49
03 ACT003 - Materials Procurements 8.7 1.49
04 ACT004 - Shop Drawings Sub & Approvals For Foundation 8.7 1.49
05 ACT005 - Shop drawings Sub & Approvals For Basement 8.7 1.49
06 ACT006 - Shop drawings Sub & Approvals For Ground Floor 8.7 1.49
07 ACT007 - Shop drawings Sub & Approvals For First Floor 8.7 1.49
08 ACT008 - Earth Works - Foundation Level 8.75 1.49
09 ACT009 - Raft Foundation - Foundation Level 15.24 2.60
10 ACT010 - External Walls - Lack of planning and scheduling 0.71 0.12
Basement Floor Unrealistic contractor program. 0.67 0.11
Inspection procedures 0.64 0.11
Inaccurate project estimate 0.58 0.10
Selection of incompetent sub- 0.51 0.09
contractors
Poor site management and planning 0.56 0.10
Unfamiliarity with new methods 0.61 0.10
Design Changes by owner's 0.76 0.13

213
 unrealistic project duration estimate 0.7 0.12
Poor coordination with regulatory 0.74 0.13
agencies
Lack of field / project experience 0.55 0.09
Week Contract clauses 0.51 0.09
Lack of site attendance control 0.48 0.08
Miss-interpretation of drawings and 0.54 0.09
specifications
Lack of planning & control on the side 0.72 0.12
of the subcontractors
Poor scheduling of subcontractors 0.7 0.12
Slow financial and payment procedures 0.88 0.15
Difficulty of working during Summer 0.8 0.14
& Ramadan
Manpower Visas difficulty 0.67 0.11
Manpower shortage in the Market 0.77 0.13
Fluctuating productivity levels 0.75 0.13
Lack of professional construction 0.74 0.13
Sum of 10 14.59 2.49
11 ACT011 - Vertical Element - Basement Floor 14.59 2.49
12 ACT012 - Hr Element - Basement Floor 14.59 2.49
13 ACT013 - Block Work - Basement Floor 8.64 1.47
14 ACT014 - Wall Finishing - Basement Floor 17.6 3.00
15 ACT015 - Ceiling Finishes - Basement Floor 17.6 3.00
16 ACT016 - Floor Finishing - Basement Floor 17.6 3.00
17 ACT017 - Electomechanical 1st Fix - Basement Floor 19.78 3.38
18 ACT018 - Electomechanical 2nd Fix - Basement Floor 19.13 3.27
19 ACT019 - Electomechanical 3rd Fix - Basement Floor 19.13 3.27
20 ACT020 - Vertical Element - Ground Floor 14.59 2.49
21 ACT021 - Hr Element - Ground Floor 14.59 2.49
22 ACT022 - Block Work - Ground Floor 8.64 1.47
23 ACT023 - Wall Finishing - Ground Floor 17.6 3.00
24 ACT024 - Ceiling Finishing - Ground Floor 17.6 3.00
25 ACT025 - Floor Finishing - Ground Floor 17.6 3.00
26 ACT026 - Electomechanical 1st Fix - Ground Floor 19.78 3.38
27 ACT027 - Electomechanical 2nd Fix - Ground Floor 19.13 3.27
28 ACT028 - Electomechanical 3rd Fix - Ground Floor 19.13 3.27
29 ACT029 - Vertical Element - First Floor 14.59 2.49
30 ACT030 - Hr Element - First Floor 14.59 2.49
31 ACT031 - Block Work - First Floor 8.64 1.47
32 ACT032 - Wall Finishing - First Floor 17.6 3.00
33 ACT033 - Ceiling Finishing - First Floor 17.6 3.00
34 ACT034 - Floor Finishing - First Floor 17.6 3.00
35 ACT035 - Electomechanical 1st Fix - First Floor 19.78 3.38
36 ACT036 - Electomechanical 2nd Fix - First Floor 19.13 3.27
37 ACT037 - Electomechanical 3rd Fix - First Floor 19.13 3.27
38 ACT038 - Roofing Works 13.46 2.30
39 ACT039 - External Elevations Works 17.79 3.04
40 ACT040 - External Landscape Works 17.79 3.04

All Risks Assigned to the Project 585.8 100

214
 Table A.3: Values of Risks Relative Indices Calculated on the Overall Project
Risk ID Risk Title Relative Risk
Index %
1503 Design Changes by owner's 4.93
1487 Poor coordination with regulatory agencies 4.80
627 Poor scheduling of subcontractors 4.66
726 Slow financial and payment procedures 4.51
892 Difficulty of working during Summer & Ramadan 4.37
1504 Lack of planning and scheduling 4.24
1061 Fluctuating productivity levels 4.10
1488 Lack of planning & control on the side of the subcontractors 4.06
1060 Manpower shortage in the Market 3.94
1482 Slow decision-making process 3.61
1486 Lack of professional construction 3.54
1495 Inspection procedures 3.50
1492 Unrealistic contractor program. 3.20
468 Inflexibility toward alternatives 3.12
1499 Poor site management and planning 2.77
1500 Lack of field / project experience 2.63
1494 Late construction mobilization 2.62
465 Apprehensive towards contractor's favouritism 2.50
1497 Inaccurate project estimate 2.48
893 Manpower Visas difficulty 2.29
626 Lack of competent specialty subcontractors 2.19
1489 Over-design practice by client 2.18
1505 Unfamiliarity with new methods 2.08
1059 Poor manpower skills 1.67
1481 Limited authority among supervision staff 1.65
1498 Selection of incompetent sub-contractors 1.56
1501 Uncooperative management 1.39
459 Miss-interpretation of drawings and specifications 1.38
2029 Testing of construction materials 1.33
2030 Unavailability of Construction material 1.31
1491 unrealistic project duration estimate 1.19
95 Design drawings errors 1.17
1496 Under staffed project personnel 1.02
1493 Lack of construction management training 1.01
92 Lack of design drawings coordination 0.99
2136 Differing site conditions 0.89
460 Risk allocation mainly on the contractor. 0.88
1502 Inadequate contractor experience 0.81
462 Week Contract clauses 0.70
1490 Lack of site attendance control 0.66
91 Design drawings and specifications do not match 0.65
1484 Short time extensions for variation orders 0.64
94 Lack of constructability applications 0.23
264 Contractors shop drawings errors 0.20
1483 Strict application of quality control program 0.13
1485 Lack of Contractors staff training on construction management techniques 0.12
93 Inefficient Shop drawings approval 0.10
Total Risks assigned to all Activities in the Project 100.00

215
 Based on the activities CSI values, the phase of work, the program will use the
regressions models to extract the predicted mean and standard deviations values that will be
used in Monte Carlo Simulation for each activity.
The program will apply Monte Carlo Simulation on the schedule and evaluate the overall
project durations. Then the program will make the necessary statistical analysis to extract the
overall project durations at different percentiles as well as the graphical curve fitting for the
projects durations as illustrated in Figure (A.1).

Figure A.1: Probability Density Function (PDF) and Curve Fitting for Overall Project
Durations

The program will present some of the possible solutions or methods that could help in
minimizing or reducing the impact of risks on the activities durations as summarized in Table
(A.4).
The Residual Risk = Initial Relative Risk * (1- Effectiveness factor)

216
 Table A.4: Risks and their Relevant Methods of Reducing Risks Impact
Initial
Risk Effectiveness Residual
Ser Risk Title Relative Methods of Minimizing Delay
ID Factor % Risk %
Risk %
Allocation of sufficient time and money at the
1 1503 Design Changes by owner's 4.92 65.0 1.7
design phase
2 1487 Poor coordination with regulatory agencies 4.80 Reduce the bureaucracy procedures 54.5 2.2
Improve project planning and scheduling of project
3 627 Poor scheduling of subcontractors 4.66 49.5 2.4
tasks
4 726 Slow financial and payment procedures 4.51 Expedite / Reduce payment procedures 51.4 2.2
Use of appropriate and advanced construction
5 892 Difficulty of working during Summer & Ramadan 4.37 39.1 2.7
methods
Improve project planning and scheduling of project
6 1504 Lack of planning and scheduling 4.24 49.5 2.1
tasks
Developing human resources in the construction
7 1061 Fluctuating productivity levels 4.10 58.6 1.7
industry
Lack of planning & control on the side of the Provide training to planning, scheduling and
8 1488 4.06 47.3 2.1
subcontractors construction staff
Facilitating skilled manpower visas and work
9 1060 Manpower shortage in the Market 3.94 51.4 1.9
permits
10 1482 Slow decision-making process 3.61 Reduce the bureaucracy procedures 54.5 1.6
Provide sufficient and competent personnel of
11 1486 Lack of professional construction 3.54 65.9 1.2
contractor
Improve inspection procedures and reduce
12 1495 Inspection procedures 3.50 60.5 1.4
inspection time
Provide training to planning, scheduling and
13 1492 Unrealistic contractor program. 3.20 47.3 1.7
construction staff
Ensure sufficient multidisciplinary and competent
14 468 Inflexibility toward alternatives 3.12 55.0 1.4
project team
15 1499 Poor site management and planning 2.77 Improve site management and supervision 48.6 1.4
Developing human resources in the construction
16 1500 Lack of field / project experience 2.63 58.6 1.1
industry
Perform a preconstruction planning of resources
17 1494 Late construction mobilization 2.62 35.9 1.7
required
18 465 Apprehensive towards contractor's favouritism 2.50 Comprehensive contract administration 53.2 1.2
19 1497 Inaccurate project estimate 2.48 Improve cost estimating methods 46.4 1.3

217
 Facilitating skilled manpower visas and work
20 893 Manpower Visas difficulty 2.29 51.4 1.1
permits
Adopting a new approach to contract award
procedures by giving less weight to prices and more
21 626 Lack of competent specialty subcontractors 2.19 43.6 1.2
weight to the capabilities and past performance of
consultants or contractors.
Complete and accurate project feasibility study and
22 1489 Over-design practice by client 2.18 40.9 1.3
site investigation
Developing human resources in the construction
23 1505 Unfamiliarity with new methods 2.08 58.6 0.9
industry
Developing human resources in the construction
24 1059 Poor manpower skills 1.67 58.6 0.7
industry
Improve clear information, communication
25 1481 Limited authority among supervision staff 1.65 52.3 0.8
channels, and document control systems
26 1498 Selection of incompetent sub-contractors 1.57 Use of experienced subcontractors and suppliers 65.9 0.5
Perform a preconstruction planning of resources
27 2030 Unavailability of Construction material 1.41 35.9 0.9
required
28 1501 Uncooperative management 1.39 Improve coordination between involved parties 50.9 0.7
Improve clear information, communication
29 459 Miss-interpretation of drawings and specifications 1.38 52.3 0.7
channels, and document control systems
Applying continuous control on materials selection,
30 2029 Testing of construction materials 1.33 45.0 0.7
manufacturing, and testing before delivery to site
Perform a preconstruction planning of resources
31 1491 unrealistic project duration estimate 1.19 35.9 0.8
required
Provide sufficient and Competent personnel of
32 95 Design drawings errors 1.17 55.0 0.5
consultant / designer
33 1496 Under staffed project personnel 1.02 Ensure Availability of resources 56.8 0.4
Provide training to planning, scheduling and
34 1493 Lack of construction management training 1.00 47.3 0.5
construction staff
Provide sufficient and Competent personnel of
35 92 Lack of design drawings coordination 0.99 55.0 0.4
consultant / designer
36 2136 Differing site conditions 0.89 Improve site management and supervision 48.6 0.5
37 460 Risk allocation mainly on the contractor. 0.88 Comprehensive contract administration 53.2 0.4
38 1502 Inadequate contractor experience 0.81 Use of experienced subcontractors and suppliers 65.9 0.3
39 462 Week Contract clauses 0.70 Comprehensive contract administration 53.2 0.3

218
40 1490 Lack of site attendance control 0.66 Control site attendance 55.5 0.3
Provide sufficient and Competent personnel of
41 91 Design drawings and specifications do not match 0.65 55.0 0.3
consultant / designer
Improve studying / approving time for change
42 1484 Short time extensions for variation orders 0.64 45.0 0.4
orders
43 94 Lack of constructability applications 0.23 Use of proper and modern construction equipment 41.4 0.1
Provide sufficient and competent personnel of
44 264 Contractors shop drawings errors 0.21 65.9 0.1
contractor
Improve construction quality and reduce rework
45 1483 Strict application of quality control program 0.13 62.3 0.0
time
Lack of Contractors staff training on construction Provide training to planning, scheduling and
46 1485 0.12 47.3 0.1
management techniques construction staff
The Initial Overall Relative Risk Value 100.00 The Residual Overall Relative Risk Value 47.9

219
 Based on the added enhancements to the risk control and project overall performance, the
extracted project durations will be reduced by the remaining risk values assigned to each
activity. The program will recalculate the values of assigned risks to each activity as shown in
Table (A.5).
Table A.5: Initial and Residual Relative Index of Risks Assigned to each Activity

Initial Modified Residual

Activity
Activity Title Risk Risk Risk
ID
Factor Factor %

02 ACT002 - Materials Submittals & Approvals 8.70 4.04 46.4

03 ACT003 - Materials Procurements 8.70 4.04 46.4

04 ACT004 - Shop Drawings Sub & Approvals For Foundation 8.70 4.04 46.4

05 ACT005 - Shop drawings Sub & Approvals For Basement 8.70 4.04 46.4
ACT006 - Shop drawings Sub & Approvals For Ground
06 8.70 4.04 46.4
Floor
07 ACT007 - Shop drawings Sub & Approvals For First Floor 8.70 4.04 46.4

08 ACT008 - Earth Works - Foundation Level 8.75 4.28 48.9

09 ACT009 - Raft Foundation - Foundation Level 15.24 7.22 47.4

10 ACT010 - External Walls - Basement Floor 14.59 6.89 47.2

11 ACT011 - Vertical Element - Basement Floor 14.59 6.89 47.2

12 ACT012 - Hr Element - Basement Floor 14.59 6.89 47.2

13 ACT013 - Block Work - Basement Floor 8.64 4.20 48.6

14 ACT014 - Wall Finishing - Basement Floor 17.60 8.57 48.7

15 ACT015 - Ceiling Finishes - Basement Floor 17.60 8.57 48.7

16 ACT016 - Floor Finishing - Basement Floor 17.60 8.57 48.7

17 ACT017 - Electomechanical 1st Fix - Basement Floor 19.78 9.44 47.7

18 ACT018 - Electomechanical 2nd Fix - Basement Floor 19.13 9.11 47.6

19 ACT019 - Electomechanical 3rd Fix - Basement Floor 19.13 9.11 47.6

20 ACT020 - Vertical Element - Ground Floor 14.59 6.89 47.2

21 ACT021 - Hr Element - Ground Floor 14.59 6.89 47.2

22 ACT022 - Block Work - Ground Floor 8.64 4.20 48.6

23 ACT023 - Wall Finishing - Ground Floor 17.60 8.57 48.7

24 ACT024 - Ceiling Finishing - Ground Floor 17.60 8.57 48.7

25 ACT025 - Floor Finishing - Ground Floor 17.60 8.57 48.7

26 ACT026 - Electomechanical 1st Fix - Ground Floor 19.78 9.44 47.7

220
 27 ACT027 - Electomechanical 2nd Fix - Ground Floor 19.13 9.11 47.6

28 ACT028 - Electomechanical 3rd Fix - Ground Floor 19.13 9.11 47.6

29 ACT029 - Vertical Element - First Floor 14.59 6.89 47.2

31 ACT031 - Block Work - First Floor 23.23 11.09 47.7

32 ACT032 - Wall Finishing - First Floor 17.60 8.57 48.7

33 ACT033 - Ceiling Finishing - First Floor 17.60 8.57 48.7

34 ACT034 - Floor Finishing - First Floor 17.60 8.57 48.7

35 ACT035 - Electomechanical 1st Fix - First Floor 19.78 9.44 47.7

36 ACT036 - Electomechanical 2nd Fix - First Floor 19.13 9.11 47.6

37 ACT037 - Electomechanical 3rd Fix - First Floor 19.13 9.11 47.6

38 ACT038 - Roofing Works 13.46 6.42 47.7

39 ACT039 - External Elevations Works 17.79 8.88 49.9

40 ACT040 - External Landscape Works 17.79 8.88 49.9

Overall Risks Assigned to All Activities 585.80 280.81 47.9

The program will consider the residual risk factor as the modification factor of the
regression models and will calculate the modified mean and standard deviation values for
each activity. Based on the modified activities durations, the program will recalculate the
overall projects durations. Then the program will also make the necessary statistical analysis
to extract the overall project durations at different percentiles as well as the graphical curve
fitting for the projects durations as illustrated in Figure (A.2) and Table (A.6).

221
Figure A.2: Probability Density Function (PDF) and Curve Fitting for Modified Overall
Project Durations

Table A.6: Initial ad Modified Projects Durations at Different Percentiles

Percentile Initial Duration (Day) Modified Duration (Day)

P20 375 365
P25 398 378
P30 424 394
P35 447 408
P40 472 423
P45 497 439
P50 528 455
P55 557 473
P60 590 493
P65 626 517
P70 670 540
P75 726 569
P80 787 604
P85 867 646
P90 1,002 705
P95 1,285 829

222
 The target project durations can be achieved at 75 percentiles; however the modified
project’s durations will enhance the degree of reliability to about 92 percentile. On the other
hand, the owner is opted to carry out the project in about 569 days with 75 percentile.

223
 ‫الملخص‬

‫تعد صناعة التشييد أحد المحركات والدعائم األساسية ألي إقتصاد قوي سواء في الدول النامية أو‬

‫المتقدمة‪ .‬ومن ثم يعتمد نجاح أي إقتصاد قومي علي نجاح صناعة التشييد إذ تؤثر صناعة التشييد‬

‫وتتأثر مباشرة بما يعادل حوالي ‪ %01‬من إجمالي الناتج المحلي ألي دولة‪ .‬كما تؤثر صناعة التشييد‬

‫مباشرة في العديد من الصناعات المساعدة حيث يتضمن إنشاء مبنى واحد حوالي ‪ 01‬مادة أساسية‬

‫وحوالي ‪ 0111‬منتج تشترك في بناءه‪ .‬باإلضافة إلي ذلك فإن صناعة التشييد توفر حوالي ‪ %7‬من‬

‫إجمالي العمالة المطلوبة بالدولة وما يوازي ‪ %02‬من إجمالي العمالة الصناعية‪.‬‬

‫إال أن طبيعة مشروعات التشييد المعقدة وذات التغييرات السريعة والحادة إضافة إلي تعرضها الدائم‬

‫للعديد من المخاطر التي تؤثر سلبا علي صناعة التشييد تحول دون تحقيق أهداف صناعة التشييد‬

‫المنشودة‪ .‬فبالرغم من أن األهداف ا ألساسية لمشروعات التشييد هي الوقت والزمن والجودة‪ ،‬نجد أن هذه‬

‫األهداف يتم إعتراضها بقوة عند تأخرها عن البرنامج الزمني المخول تنفيذه‪ .‬فتأخير مشروعات التشييد‬

‫يعرضها لعدم التوازن في التنفيذ‪ ،‬ويقل ل اإلنتاجية ويتسبب في في زيادة التكاليف‪ ،‬كما يؤدي إلي النزاعات‬

‫بين أطراف التعاقد وقد تصل هذه النزاعات في بعض األحيان إلي إنهاء العقد والغاء تنفيذ المشروع‪،‬‬

‫إضافة إلي الخسائر الناتجة من عدم االستثمار وتراجع قيمة رأس المال‪ ،‬واألهم من ذلك كله هو تعرض‬

‫مصالح المستفيدين أو المواطنين للتعطل أو التوقف الكامل في بعض األحيان‪.‬‬

‫ففي الدراسة التي قام بها البنك الدولي وتضمنت ‪ 0007‬مشروعاً تم تنفيذهم في الفترة ما بين عامي‬

‫‪ 0771‬و ‪ 0722‬كان االستنتاج األساسي هو تأخر تسليم حوالي ‪ %71‬من هذه المشروعات عن‬

‫المواعيد المقررة للتسليم مع زيادة تكاليف هذه المشروعات ما بين ‪ %01‬إلي ‪ %21‬من تكاليفها المقدرة‪.‬‬

‫وفي الدراسة التي قام بها مكتب التدقيق والمراجة الدولي في المملكة المتحدة‪ ،‬وجد أن ‪ %71‬من‬

‫مشروعات التشييد الحكومية التي تم تسليمها في أواخر ‪ 0110‬قد تم تسليمها متأخرة عن مواعيدها‬

‫أ‬
‫األصلية‪ .‬إلي جانب ذلك‪ ،‬فقد أشارت أحدي الدراسات علي ‪ 002‬من مشروعات البنية التحتية بدولة‬

‫الدنمارك إلي أن ‪ %71‬من هذه المشروعات قد وقعت ضحية للتأخير وزيادة التكاليف‪.‬‬

‫علي الجانب اآلخر‪ ،‬فقد تم القيام بالعديد من الدراسات واإلحصاءات علي أداء مشروعات التشييد بالدول‬

‫النامية كدول منطقة الشرق األوسط والشرق األقصي ودول الخليج العربي وأفريقيا‪ .‬فقد أفادت أحدي‬

‫الدراسات بالمملكة العربية السعودية إن حوالي ‪ %71‬من مشروعات التشييد العامة قد تأخرت عن مواعيد‬

‫تسليمها األصلية‪ .‬وفي الدراسة التي تم تطبيقها في دولة األمارات العربية المتحدة وجد أن ‪ %01‬من‬

‫مشروعات التشييد قد تكبدت تأخيرات كبيرة‪ .‬باإلضافة إلي ذلك‪ ،‬فقد استنتجت الدراسة التي قامت بها‬

‫شعبة البنية التحتية ومراقبة المشروعات بو ازرة اإلحصاء وتنفيذ البرنامج في الهند علي ‪ 010‬من‬

‫مشروعات التشييد بقيمة تقديرية ‪ 01‬تريليون دوالر أمريكي أن ‪ %11‬من هذه المشروعات قد تم تسليمها‬

‫متأخرة‪ .‬إلي جانب ذلك‪ ،‬فقد أشارت إحدي ال دراسات بدولة نيجيريا إلي أن الحد األدني لمتوسط الزيادة‬

‫في مدة مشروعات التشييد بنيجيريا يصل إلي ‪ %022‬من المدة األصلية‪.‬‬

‫وبصفة عامة‪ ،‬تشير المؤشرات والدراسات اإلحصائية إلي تراجع أداء مشروعات التشييد في اآلونة األخيرة‬

‫نتيجة إلرتفاع درجات التعقيد في تصميم المشروعات إضافة إلي تعرضها لمزيد من درجات المخاطر‬

‫وعدم التأكدية‪ .‬ففي البيان السنوى العاشر الصادر من البنك الدولي‪ ،‬فقد تسبب تراجع أداء مشروعات‬

‫التشييد إلي زيادة تكاليف مشروعات التشييد بما يعادل حوالي ‪ %001‬من الميزانيات المقدرة لها إضافة‬

‫إلي تأخرها عن مواعيد تسليمها المحددة بحوالي ‪ %00‬من المدد المقدرة للتنفيذ‪.‬‬

‫علي الجانب اآلخر‪ ،‬تهتم إدارة مشروعات التشييد بإدارة مدخالت ومخرجات مشروعات التشييد بما‬

‫يضمن تحسين أدائها وتحقيق أهدافها من وقت أو تكاليف أو جودة‪ .‬ولكن عادة ما يقابل إدارة مشروعات‬

‫التشييد العديد من التحديات التي تعيق تحقيق أهداف إدارة التشييد علي الوجه األكمل‪ .‬وتكمن هذه‬

‫التحديات في وجهين أساسيين هما‪( :‬أوالً) تواجه مشروعات التشييد العديد من المخاطر التي يصعب‬

‫ب‬
‫تحديدها كمياً وبالتالي يصعب مراقبتها والتحكم بها‪( ،‬ثانياً) التأثير الكمي للمخاطر علي المدة الزمنية‬

‫والتكاليف لمشروعات التشييد ليست عملية مباشرة أو يمكن تمثيلها رياضيًا بمعادالت محددة‪ .‬باإلضافة‬

‫إلي ذلك‪ ،‬فإن مشروعات التشييد تتميز بدرجاتها العالية من التعقيد‪ ،‬والتغيير الحاد السريع‪ ،‬وطبيعتها‬

‫الديناميكية التي تجعل من كل مشروع من مشروعات التشييد مشروعاً فريدا من نوعه مهما تشابه مع‬

‫مشروعات أخري من حيث الحجم والنوع والمكان وقيمة التكاليف المقدرة‪.‬‬

‫لذلك فقد أثار موضوع التخطيط وادارة مشروعات التشييد العلماء في العقود الماضية‪ ،‬قدموا خاللها‬

‫العديد من األبحاث والدراسات التي حاول وا من خاللها كشف الغموض المرتبط بسلوك مشروعات التشييد‬

‫خالل مراحل تنفيذها‪ .‬وبالرغم من ذلك مازال هناك العديد والعديد من الغموض الذي لم يتم كشفه وما‬

‫كان ذلك نتيجة لقصور في األبحاث المقدمة ولكن للتنوع الهائل في خصائص مشروعات التشييد‬

‫وتغيرها الحاد والسريع من مشروع آلخر‪.‬‬

‫تمثل عمليات التخطيط والجدولة الزمنية العمود الفقري إلدارة مشروعات التشييد وهو ما أسفرت عنه‬

‫الدراسة حول أهمية التخطيط لمشروعات التشييد‪ ،‬حيث أوضحت الدراسة التي تمت بمشاركة ‪ 0710‬من‬

‫المشاركين في صناعة التشييد والتي تضمنت مقاولين ومصممين وموردين ومدراء للمشاريع أن ضعف‬

‫التخطيط والجدولة الزمنية وادارة العقد لمشروعات التشييد هو التهديد األساسي لصناعة التشييد وهو ما‬

‫أكد عليه أكثر من ‪ % 01‬من المشاركين بالدراسة‪ .‬كما أكدت الدراسة علي أن كفاءة التخطيط والجدولة‬

‫لمشروعات التشييد يمكن تحسينها بشكل ملحوظ بتحسين مؤهالت وتوجهات األطراف المعنية بإدارة هذه‬

‫المشروعات‪ .‬تسهم الجدولة الزمنية في التخطيط والمراقبة والتحكم في أداء مشروعات التشييد من جانب‪.‬‬

‫وعلي الجانب اآلخر تساعد الجدولة الزمنية لمشروعات التشييد في مراقبة التكاليف‪ ،‬تسجيل أداء األنشطة‬

‫والمهام بالجدول الزمني‪ ،‬إستيفاء مطلب تعاقدي‪ ،‬إدارة التغيير لحجم األعمال التعاقدي‪ ،‬كما يمثل طريقة‬

‫قانونية لتقييم تأثير التأخير وفض النزاع القائم حول الطرف المتسبب في التأخير‪ .‬وألهمية الجدولة الزمنية‬

‫ت‬
‫فقد تطورت األدوات واآلليات والطرق المختلفة للجدولة مثل طريقة المسار الحرجة )‪ (CPM‬وطريقة تقييم‬

‫ومراجعة البرنامج )‪ .(PERT‬وظهرت أهمي ة الجدولة الزمنية لمشروعات التشييد جلية في الدراسة التي‬

‫قامت علي أعلي ‪ 111‬مقاول طبقا لتسجيالت أخبار الهندسة القياسية )‪ (ENR‬التي أوضحت أن تطبيق‬

‫طريقة )‪ (CPM‬قد زاد من ‪ %71‬إلي ‪ %72‬ما بين عامي ‪ 0771‬و ‪.0112‬‬

‫وقد وجد العلماء أن أهم العمليات المتعلقة بالجدولة الزمنية وأكثرها حرجًا هي عملية تقدير مدة كل نشاط‬

‫داخل الجدول الزمني‪ .‬قديمًا حاول العلماء التغلب علي عدم التيقن وعلي تأثير المخاطر التي يتعرض لها‬

‫مشروعات التشييد علي سلوك األنشطة المدرجة بالجدول الزمني وذلك باستخدام الطرق الحتمية‬

‫(المحددة) والخبرات الهندسية الفتراض قيم ثابتة تضاف لتقديرات الزمن والتكاليف المطلوبة لتنفيذ أنشطة‬

‫مشروعات التشييد تمثل هذه القيم اإلضافية معامالت اآلمان التي تمكن القائمين علي تنفيذ تلك‬

‫المشروعات من مواجهة المخاطر المحتملة والغير متوقعة أثناء دراسة الجدوي لمالكي هذا المشروعات‬

‫أو أثناء دراسة العطاء للمقاولين واالستشاريين المشاركين في المشروع‪ .‬ونظ اًر لعدم كفاءة هذه الطرق في‬

‫فقد تم استخدام الطرق االحتمالية لقياس وتقييم هذه‬ ‫تقديم التقييم المناسب والدقيق لهذه التأثيرات‪،‬‬

‫التغيرات ودراسة تأثيرها علي أنشطة مشروعات التشييد وتقديم البدائل لتقدير المدة العادلة والمناسبة لتنفيذ‬

‫مشروعات التشييد‪.‬‬

‫يمثل تقدير مدة مشروعات التشييد في حد ذاتها مخاطر كبيرة ألنها تعتمد علي متطلبات وحاجة مالكي‬

‫تلك المشروعات فقط بغض النظر عن طرق التنفيذ المتاحة والموارد المتوفرة ومتوسط إنتاجية تلك‬

‫الموارد‪ .‬وبالتالي فإن دراسة مدة تنفيذ المشروع بصورة ممنهجة وموثوقة تمثل العامل األولي في تقليل‬

‫مخاطر واحتمالية تأخر المشروع‪ .‬فقد اعتمدت نماذج تقدير مدة المشروع التقليدية علي حجم األعمال‪،‬‬

‫درجة المخاطرة‪ ،‬نوع المشروع‪ ،‬نوع مالك المشروع‪ ،‬قيود سوق العمل‪ ،‬وظيفة المنشأ‪ ،‬و تاريخ بداية‬

‫المشروع‪ .‬في حين أهملت هذه النماذج درجات التعقيد المختلفة والمتفاوتة ودرجات عدم التأكدية‬

‫ث‬
‫ومستويات المخاطر التي قد يتعرض لها المشروع‪ .‬أما فيما يتعلق بنماذج تقدير مدة األنشطة فقد اعتمدت‬

‫بشكل أساسي علي القيم الحتمية والتي تعتمد علي حقائق حتمية‪ ،‬أما ما يتعلق باالحتماالت وعدم‬

‫التأكدية ودرجات المخاطرة فقد تم احتسابها في صورة هامش إضافي أو معامالت أمان تحددها كل شركة‬

‫حسب خبرات العاملين بها وبالتالي ينتج تقدير وحيد لكل نشاط في طريقة المسار الحرج أو تقدير ثالثي‬

‫في طريقة )‪ (PERT‬وهو ما أثبت عدم كفائته في تمثيل مخاطر األنشطة وتمثيل سلوكها المتعدد‪.‬‬

‫والجدير بالذكر أيضًا أن الجدا ول الزمنية التي تعتمد علي طريقة المسار الحرج تهتم فقط بالمسارات‬

‫ال للمسارات األخرى بالمشروع وهو ما يمثل تهديدًا صريحأ لكفاءة عمليات التخطيط‬
‫الحرجة وال تعير با ً‬

‫والجدولة‪.‬‬

‫تشتمل هذه الدراسة علي ثالث دراسات متكاملة علي السلوك الفعلي وأداء أنشطة مشروعات التشييد بدول‬

‫منطقة الشرق األوسط‪.‬‬

‫تقدم الدراسة األولى مراجعة نقدية ومقارنة تحليلية للمخاطر التي قد يتعرض لها مشروعات التشييد علي‬

‫مستوي العالم ومقارنة ذلك بما قد تتعرض له مشروعات التشييد بدول منطقة الشرق األوسط‪ .‬كما قدمت‬

‫الدراسة تحليالً لألطراف المسئولة عن تأخير مشروعات التشييد علي مستوي العالم ومقارنة تلك النتائج‬

‫بما تضمنته األبحاث والدراسات بدول منطقة الشرق األوسط‪ .‬تم ذلك من خالل تجميع واستعراض‬

‫وتحليل الدراسات السابقة حول أسباب تأخير المشروعات لكل دولة علي مستوى العالم وتجميعها طبقًا‬

‫للقارة أو المنطقة التي تنتمي إليها‪ .‬كما تضمنت الدراسة األولى تحليال إحصائيًا للسلوك الفعلي ألنشطة‬

‫مشروعات التشييد وتحليالً إحصائياً للنسب الفعليه للتأخير عن الجدوال الزمنية الخاصه بها‪ ،‬وقد أشتمل‬

‫تحليل التأخير والمقارن ًة بالتواريخ المخططة للبداية المبكرة‪ ،‬وللبداية المتأخرة‪ ،‬وللنهاية المبكرة وللنهاية‬

‫المتأخرة‪ .‬تم تنفيذ هذا التحليل اإلحصائي علي عدد ‪ 01‬مشروع مختلفًا بدول منطقة الشرق األوسط‪ ،‬وقد‬

‫إشتملت هذه المشروعات علي عدد يفوق ‪ 000,111‬نشاطًا تمثل غالبيه أنشطة التشييد بكافة أنواعها‪.‬‬

‫ج‬
‫هذا وقد تم تحليل النتائج طبقًا لمرحلة التنفيذ كمرحلة اإلعداد الهندسي والتوريد ومرحلة التنفيذ واإلنشاء‬

‫ال عن تقسيم النتائج إلي أقسام طبقا لتقسيمات معهد مواصفات البناء )‪.(CSI‬كما قدمت الدراسة‬
‫فض ً‬

‫ال كميًا لتأثير المخاطر المختلفة علي أنشطة أحد المشروعات ذات الطبيعة التك اررية بدولة‬
‫األولى تحلي ً‬

‫الكويت ‪ ،‬حيث تم دراسة تأثير المخاطر علي عدد س بعة أنشطة مختلفة تمثل عينة من األعمال المدنية‬

‫والميكانيكية والكهربائية بمشروع سكني بدولة الكويت‪ .‬يتضمن هذا المشروع السكني تنفيذ ‪ 0070‬وحدة‬

‫سكنية متماثلة من حيث التصميم والشكل والموقع والمقاول األساسي والجهة المالكة للمشروع‪.‬‬

‫ال إحصائيا للسلوك الفعلي ألنشطة مشروعات تشييد حقيقية واستنتاج نماذج‬
‫قدمت الدراسة الثانية تحلي ً‬

‫دوال الكثافة للتوزيع االحصائي المناسب‪ .‬وتضمنت الدراسة ‪ 01‬مشروعاً حقيقياً من مشروعات التشييد‬

‫التي يندرج تحتها ما ال يقل عن ‪ 000,111‬نشاط مختلف‪ .‬كما تضمنت الدراسة مقارنة أربع دوال كثافة‬

‫شهيره وهي‪:‬‬

‫‪ .0‬دالة التوزيع العشوائي الطبيعي‬

‫‪ .0‬دالة توزيع جاما‬

‫‪ .2‬دالة توزيع ويبول‬

‫‪ .1‬دالة التوزيع االحتمالي اللوغاريتمي الطبيعي‪.‬‬

‫بناء علي مرحلة التنفيذ في كافة الدول المدرجة‬

‫هذا وقد تم تقسيم نتائج الدراسة لحاالت دراسية مختلفة ً‬

‫بالدراسة‪ ،‬دراسة الحالة لكل دولة رئيسية منفردة‪ ،‬دراسة مرحلة التنفيذ لكل المشروعات بدولة واحدة‪ ،‬دراسة‬

‫أقسام األنشطة طبقًا لتقسيم معهد مواصفات البناء )‪ (CSI‬لكافة المشروعات لكل الدول‪ ،‬ثم لكافة‬

‫المشروعات لدولة واحدة ثم لكل نشاط متكرر داخل إطار مشروع واحد‪.‬‬

‫هذا وقد قدمت الدراسة الثالثة نماذج انحدار تنبؤية لقيم المتوسط الحسابي وقيم االنحراف المعياري الفعليه‬

‫بناء علي قيم مدة األنشطة السابق تقديرها باستخدام طرق التقدير التقليدية المستنتجة من متوسط معدالت‬

‫ح‬
‫األداء وخالفه من معامالت التقدير التقليدية‪ .‬كما تم استنتاج نماذج انحدار تنبؤية أخري لقيم المتوسط‬

‫الحسابي الفعلي لألنشطة بناء علي تكاليفها المقدرة‪ .‬وقد اشتملت الدراسة علي العديد من دراسات الحالة‬

‫مقسم ًة طبقا لألنشطة في كل الدول‪ ،‬مرحلة التنفيذ في كل الدول‪ ،‬مرحلة التنفيذ في دولة واحدة‪ ،‬أقسام‬

‫معهد البناء في كل الدول‪ ،‬اقسام معهد البناء في دولة واحدة‪ ،‬وأقسام معهد مواصفات البناء في مشروع‬

‫واحد فقط‪.‬‬

‫وخالل الدراسة تم تطوير برنامج حاسب آلي باستخدام لغة السي شارب بالتكامل مع برنامج الماتالب‬

‫وبرنامج الجدولة مايكروسوفت بروجكت ليقوم بالوظائف التالية‪:‬‬

‫ال بالمخاطر المعدة مسبقاً في قاعدة بيانات شاملة وذلك لدراسة‬

‫(‪ )0‬إعداد برنامج زمني محم ً‬

‫التأثير الكمي للمخاطر علي كل نشاط‪.‬‬

‫(‪ )0‬إجراء دراسة تحليلية ألفضل نماذج التوزيع اإلحصائية لدوال الكثافة لتمثيل لسلوك الفعلي‬

‫ألنشطة وبالتالي استخدام هذه الدوال في محاكاة مونتي كارلو‪.‬‬

‫(‪ )2‬استنتاج الخصائص اإلحصائية لكل نشاط طبقا لنماذج اإلنحدر والتنبؤ المناسبة له‪،‬‬

‫وتوليد أرقام عشوائية تتبع توزيعات احتمالية طبيعية وغير طبيعية (السابق عرضها)‪.‬‬

‫واجراء تحليل تكراري لكل توزيع لتوليد تجمعات عشوائية من مدة المشروع بالكامل وذلك‬

‫من خالل إجراء وتنفيذ المحاكاة بطريقة مونتي كارلو وتطبيقها علي الجدولة الزمنية‬

‫لألنشطة‪.‬‬

‫(‪ )1‬حساب المعامالت اإلحصائية لمدة المشروع بالكامل وتحديد درجة المصداقية المقابلة لكل‬

‫مدة مقدرة‪.‬‬

‫وتشمل التطبيقات العددية بالرسالة المسائل اآلتية‪:‬‬

‫خ‬
‫‪ .0‬دراسة تأثير المخاطر المحتملة علي مشروعات التشييد بدولة الكويت والمستمدة من‬

‫أبحاث سابقة علي أنشطة أحد مشروعات التشييد ذات الطبيعة التك اررية بدولة الكويت‬

‫حيث يتكرر كل نشاط بعينه حوالي ‪ 0070‬مرة‪ .‬وقد بينت الدراسة أن عدد ‪02‬‬

‫مخاطرة من بين ‪ 01‬مخاطرة اشتملت عليها األبحاث السابقة هي التي لها تأثير فعال‬

‫علي عدد ‪ 7‬أنشطة تم دراستها‪.‬‬

‫‪ .0‬كما أوضحت الدراسة أن أهمم ثمالث مخماطر همي‪ )0( :‬نقمص التخطميط والجدولمة وعمدم‬

‫التنس مميق ب ممين الج ممداول الزمني ممة للمق مماول الريئس ممي ومق مماولي الب مماطن; (‪ )2‬ت ممأخر ص ممرف‬

‫ال ممدفعات الجاري ممة للمق مماول الرئيس ممي وم ممن ث ممم مق مماولي الب مماطن والم مموردين; (‪ )2‬تذب ممذب‬

‫معممدالت اإلنتاجي ممة‪ .‬وتس مماهم هممذه المخ مماطر ال ممثالث ف ممي تممأخيرات األنش ممطة الس ممبع بم مما‬

‫يعادل حوالي ‪ %00‬من إجمالي التمأخيرات‪ ،‬وبالتمالي مراقبمة همذه المخماطر المثالث فقمط‬

‫قد يكون كفيالً بتقليل مخاطر األنشطة السبعة ومن ثم مخاطر المشروع‪.‬‬

‫‪ .2‬إلي جانب ذلك فقد بينت الدراسة أن ما يعادل ‪ %70‬من األنشطة تتكبد تأخيرات‬

‫تتراوح ما بين ‪ %00‬إلي ‪ %27‬من قيم التأخيرات القصوي‪ ،‬أما نسبة ال ‪%0‬‬

‫المتبقية فتمثل تأخيرت ليس لها عالقة مباشرة بالمخاطر ولكنها تأتي نتيجة إهمال أو‬

‫عدم تركيز فريق التنفيذ بالمشروع علي حل أسباب التأخير مما يولد تأخيرات غير‬

‫مبررة ويمكن تجاوزها أثناءدراسة السلوك الفعلي ألنشطة مشروعات التشييد بدول‬

‫منطقة الشرق األوسط‪.‬‬

‫‪ .1‬دراسة أفضل نماذج التوزيع اإلحصائية لتمثيل سلوك األنشطة الفعلي لحاالت دراسية‬

‫عديدة منها كافة األانشطة بدول منطقة الشرق األوسط‪ ،‬األنشطة الهندسية وأنشطة‬

‫التوريدات بكافة الدول‪ ،‬أنشطة التنفيذ بكافة الدول‪ ،‬األنشطة المدنية متمثلة في أقسام‬

‫د‬
‫الخرسانات‪ ،‬أقسام التشطيبات لكافة الدول‪ ،‬األنشطة الميكانيكية لكل الدول مثل‬

‫أنشطة مكافحة الحريق‪ ،‬األعمال الصحية وأعمال التكييف‪ ،‬أنشطة األعمال‬

‫الكهرابائية لكل الدول وتم تنفيذ نفس هذه الدراسات علي كافة المشروعات المدرجة‬

‫بالبحث لدولة الكويت فقط‪ ،‬ومشروع واحد بدولة الكويت فقط‪ .‬بينت هذه الدراسة أن‬

‫استخدام التوزيع االحتمالي اللوغاريتمي الطبيعي لتمثيل أنشطة مشروعات التشييد‬

‫بدول منطقة الشرق األوسط هي أكثر التوزيعات ذاث الثقة‪ .‬يليه توزيع جاما‪ .‬في حين‬

‫أن التوزيع العشوائي الطبيعي هو أقل التوزيعات من حيث درجة الثقة‪.‬‬

‫‪ .0‬دراسة نماذج اإلنحدار لتحديد العالقة بين المدة المقدرة بطرق تقليدية وبين قيم‬

‫المتوسط الحسابي واالنحراف المعياري الفعليه لالنشطة من جانب‪ ،‬وتحديد العالقة‬

‫بين التكاليف المقدرة والمتوسط الحسابي الفعلي لألنشطة من جانب أخر‪ ،‬وقد بينت‬

‫الدراسة انه كلما قلت المدة المقد رة للنشاط كلما ارتفعت نسبة الزيادة في مدة النشاط‬

‫الفعليه وذلك لعدم وجود القدر الكافي من مدة النشاط السترجاع التأخير الطارئ عليه‪.‬‬

‫‪ .0‬كما بينت الدراسة أن نسبة المتوسط الحسابي للمدة الفعليه إلي قيمة المدة المقدرة‬

‫لألنشطة التي تزيد فيها المدة المقدرة عن ‪ 021‬يوم تعادل ما بين (‪ )0.7‬إلي (‪)0.2‬‬

‫المدة المقدرة وهو ما يتماشي مع الدراسات السابقة التي تم تطبيقها علي المدة الكلية‬

‫لمشروعات التشييد‪.‬‬

‫‪ .7‬أوضحت الدراسة أن نسبة المدة الفعليه القصوي لمدة النشاط المتوسطه دائما ما تكون‬

‫أكبر من أربع مرات المدة المتوسطه‪ ،‬في حين أوضحت الدراسات السابقة أن المدة‬

‫القصوي تعادل (‪ )0.00‬المدة المتوسطه‪.‬‬

‫ذ‬
‫‪ .2‬وكقاعدة عامة‪ ،‬فإن المدة الكلية للمشروع والمتوقعه استنادا إلى نماذج اإلنحدار‬

‫المقترحة تميل إلى أن تكون أكبر من المدة الكلية للمشروع والتي تم حسابها بناء علي‬

‫التقديرات التقليدية لمدد األنشطة ‪.‬ومع ذلك‪ ،‬فقد أظهرت اختبارات التحقق من صحة‬

‫مدد المشاريع أن المدد المحسوبة باستخدام نماذج االنحدار هي األكثر واقعية‪.‬‬

‫وبالتالي‪ ،‬يمكن إلزام المقاولين لتنفيذ منهجيات مختلفة وخطط بديلة لتقليل مدة‬

‫المشروع المتوقعة ومن ثم يستوفي المدة التعاقدية‪ ،‬أو قد تستخدم هذه المدد المتوقعة‬

‫في تغيير أولويات تنفيذ المشروعات العامة واعادة دراسة الخطط التمويلية للمشروعات‬

‫بما يخدم المصلحة العامة وخطط البناء والتنمية بالدولة‪.‬‬

‫ر‬
 ‫نماذج احتمالية لمدة تنفيذ مشروعات التشييد في الشرق األوسط‬

‫إعــــــداد‬
‫وليد محفوظ محمد علي يوسف‬

‫رسالة مقدمة إلي كلية الهندسة ‪ ،‬جامعة القاهرة‬

‫كجزء من متطلبات الحصول علي درجة دكتوراه الفلسفة‬
‫في‬
‫الهندسة اإلنشائية‬

‫يعتمد من لجنة الممتحنين‪:‬‬

‫ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ‬
‫المشرف الرئيسى‬ ‫األستاذ الدكتور‪ :‬عثمان محمد عثمان رمضان‬
‫أستاذ تحليل وميكانيكا اإلنشاءات‬
‫كلية الهندسة‪ ،‬جامعة القاهرة‬

‫ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ‬
‫الممتحن الداخلي‬ ‫األستاذ الدكتور‪ :‬متولي عبد العزيز أحمد‬
‫أستاذ تحليل وميكانيكا اإلنشاءات‬
‫كلية الهندسة‪ ،‬جامعة القاهرة‬

‫ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ‬
‫الممتحن الخارجي‬ ‫األستاذ الدكتور‪ :‬إبراهيم عبد الرشيد نصير‬
‫أستاذ هندسة وإدارة التشييد‬
‫كلية الهندسة‪ ،‬جامعة عين شمس‬

‫كليــة الهندســة ‪ -‬جامعــة القاهــرة‬

‫الجيـزة ‪ -‬جمهوريـة مصـر العربيــة‬
‫‪2109‬‬
‫نماذج احتمالية لمدة تنفيذ مشروعات التشييد في الشرق األوسط‬

‫إعــــــداد‬
‫وليد محفوظ محمد علي يوسف‬

‫رسالة مقدمة إلي كلية الهندسة ‪ ،‬جامعة القاهرة‬

‫كجزء من متطلبات الحصول علي درجة دكتوراه الفلسفة‬
‫في‬
‫الهندسة اإلنشائية‬

‫تحت اشراف‬
‫أ‪.‬د‪ /‬عثمان محمد عثمان رمضان‬
‫أستاذ تحليل وميكانيكا اإلنشاءات‬
‫قسم الهندسة اإلنشائية‬
‫كلية الهندسة – جامعة القاهرة‬

‫كليــة الهندســة ‪ -‬جامعــة القاهــرة‬

‫الجيـزة ‪ -‬جمهوريـة مصـر العربيــة‬
‫‪2109‬‬
‫نماذج احتمالية لمدة تنفيذ مشروعات التشييد في الشرق األوسط‬

‫إعــــداد‬
‫وليد محفـوظ محمد علي يوسف‬

‫رسالة مقدمة إلي كلية الهندسة ‪ ،‬جامعة القاهرة‬

‫كجزء من متطلبات الحصول علي درجة دكتوراه الفلسفة‬
‫في‬
‫الهندسة اإلنشائية‬

‫كليــة الهندســة ‪ -‬جامعــة القاهــرة‬

‫الجيـزة ‪ -‬جمهوريـة مصـر العربيــة‬
‫‪2109‬‬