KICEM Journal of Construction Engineering and Project Management www.jcepm.

org
Online ISSN 2233-9582
http://dx.doi.org/10.6106/JCEPM.2012.2.3.017

Development of a methodology for analysing and

quantifying the impact of delay factors affecting
construction projects
Abdulhamid Shebob1, Nashwan Dawood2, and Raj K. Shah3

Received February 20, 2012 / Revised August 8, 2012 / Accepted August 15, 2012

Abstract: Delays are one of the biggest problems facing by the construction industry and they have significant financial and social
impact in construction projects. The paper presents a framework of Delay Analysis System (DAS) with the aim of analysing the
impact of delay factors in Libyan construction projects. The system has designed by integrating the possible delay factors, critical
activities of a project using @ risk simulator. A case study of building project was demonstrated to identify the impact of delays and
the sensitivity of delay factor. The case study result showed that the project might be delayed by 97 to 103 days in comparison to the
planned duration. The developed DAS is a tool for analysing and identify the impacts of delay factors and assist to construction
manager to take necessary measure in reducing the delay impact. The paper provides a methodology for analysing the possible
delay impact in a construction project and informing to construction manager in advance of the possible delay factors.

Keywords: construction delay, industry survey, importance weight, critical delay factors, delay analysis system

I. INTRODUCTION
Delay factors play a major role in the delivery of a project and the extent of these delays varies from project
construction project on time, within budget and at the to project. It is found that certain projects are only a few
required quality. A report published by General People's days late while some projects are delayed by over a
Committee PGC (2003) pointed out that 97% of public and month or a year. For construction projects in developing
private Libyan construction projects suffer delays with a and developed countries, several research studies were
high impact on project cost and time. Mansfield (1994) carried out to identify the delay factors, and they found a
stated that timely completing of construction project was a wide range of opinions and factors that delay a project.
signal of project efficiency; however, construction Al-Moumani (2000) developed a qualitative analysis of
processes depend up on several variables and unpredictable construction delays by examining the records of 130
factors that occur from various sources, including public building projects in Jordan. The frequencies
performance of involved party, availability of resources, analysis method was used to rank the main causes of
site conditions and contractual conditions. delay from the survey data and revealed that the main
Understanding the factors of construction delay may causes of delay in construction projects were designer’s
help to find out the main factors and their significance in faults, changes in weather, site conditions, late deliveries,
order to minimise and avoid the impact of delays in economic conditions and variation in quantities.
construction projects. This paper includes a case study to Similarly, Alaghbri et al (2005) found several causes of
identify the possible delay and the sensitivity of each delay in Saudi construction projects by analysing the
critical delay factor using @ risk simulation model. The survey data collected from 23 contractors, 19 consultants,
findings from case study is expected to assist construction and 15 owners. They found that drawing preparation,
manager in taking necessary measures particularly the approval of design, payment delay, changes in design,
critical delay factors to reduce the impact on construction slow cash flow, design errors, and labour shortage were
project. The remainder of the paper contents literature the key delay factors that affecting the project delay.
review, questionnaire design, data collection and analysis, Previous research studies (Mansfield et al, 1994;
@risk simulation and a case study of a building project in Mezher and Tawil, 1998; Zaneldin, 2006; Assaf et al,
Libya. 1995; Ogunlana and Promkuntong 1996; Al-Moumani
2000; Frimpong and Oluwoye 2003; Abdelnaser et al
II. LITERATURE REVIEW 2005) found that the delay factors in construction projects
were quite different from project to project and country to
Construction delays are a major problem in the
country. Morano (2006) highlighted that a large number
construction industry. Ahmed et al (2003) suggested that
of techniques are being used in the identification process
delays are key problem that occur in each construction

¹ PhD Researcher: School of Science and Engineering (SSE), Teesside University, Middlesbrough, TS1 3BA, UK, Tel/Fax: +44 1642 342494,
[email protected]
² Professor: School of Science and Engineering (SSE), Teesside University, Middlesbrough, TS1 3BA, UK,
3
Lecturer: School of Science and Engineering (SSE), Teesside University, Middlesbrough, TS1 3BA, UK

17
 Development of a methodology for analysing and quantifying the impact of delay factors affecting construction projects

of risks in the construction projects. These techniques are constraints. Previous research did not incorporate the
checklists, interviews with individuals or groups, importance weight (of delay factors (that have major
brainstorming, survey and Delphi technique. Abdulaziz et contribution in project delay) in quantifying the impact of
al (1998) found various methods to analyse the impact of delays in construction projects. In anticipation of the
delays on construction schedules and these methods are effect of globalisation and technological difference
As-planned method, As-built method and modified As- between developing and developed countries, it is
built method. They also found that the outcomes of delay necessary to identify the actual reasons of delay in order
were unpredictable. One method might not be used to reduce the impact of delay in any construction project.
universally over another in all situations; or one method Therefore, a new methodology for analysing and
might prove to be the most desirable from the standpoint quantifying the impact of the delay factors is necessary
of the contractor or the owner (Abdulaziz et al, 1998). by integrating the influence value of each possible delay
To analyse the impact of delay factors on construction factor in a construction project so that a preventative
projects, Youngjae et al (2005) developed an effective and measure can taken in advance to minimise the impact of
logical methodology “Delay Analysis Method Using project delay and reduce the project cost.
Delay Section (DAMUDS)” by evaluating the
construction delays which adequately accounts for III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
commonly encountered situations. The first inadequacy
According to Wael et al (2007), a questionnaire is one
was the ambiguity in the analysis of the concurrent delay.
of the most cost effective ways to collect and analyse a
The other was the inadequacy of consideration of time-
large number of responses from the involved parties in
shortened activities. The DAMUDS incorporated two
the construction industry in order to achieve better
new concepts for correcting these inadequacies: the Delay
statistical analysis of the data. In this study, therefore, a
Section (DS) and the Contractor’s Float (CF). The
questionnaire was used to collect the data related to delay
developed method included three steps: the first step was
factors associated with construction projects. The survey
a division of the total delayed project duration into
data were analysed to rank the delay factors and
multiple time increments of DSs, and the second step was
determine the Important Weight (IW) of delay factors
to analyse and evaluate the time increment. The last step
using the frequency and severity index method. A
was to iterate the analysis of time increment into three
framework for a Delay Analysis System (DAS) is
steps: updating the baseline schedule, rescheduling the
developed using the findings from a literature review and
updated baseline schedule, and apportioning the
industry survey. Frequency and severity index methods
responsibility of the changed project duration. The
are used to identify the delay factors in Libyan
DAMUDS was widely used as a method of concurrent
construction industry. A case study of a building project is
period of analysis. However, this method did not integrate
used to evaluate the functions of the DAS. The next
and simulate the risk probability associated with delay
section discusses the industry survey.
factors and critical work activities of a construction
project.
More recently, Jaskowski and Biruk (2011) pointed out A. Questionnaire design
that project activities’ durations are directly affected by
A questionnaire was designed by analysing the existing
different risk factors independently. Existing risk analysis
models, for example, simple analytical and neural questions, which were used in previous study for
networks developed by Kog et al. 1999; Chua et al. 1997; identification of delay factors in construction projects
Wa’el and Mohd (2007). The aim of the survey is to
Zayed & Halpin 2005; Shi 1999, AbouRizk et al. 2001;
identify the frequency of occurrence and the severity
and, Sonmez & Rowings 1998; fuzzy set model
level of delay factors associated within construction
developed by Lee & Jaskowski, Biruk and Halpin 2003,
and regression model developed by Hanna & Gunduz projects. Contractors, owner and consultants were
2005, Jaselskis & Ashley 1991; cited in Jaskowski and requested to answer the questions pertaining to their
experience within construction industry. The
Biruk, 2011) failed to provide more reliable solution for
questionnaire was divided into three parts. Part one was
predicting activity and whole project durations. However,
related to general information of the respondent’s
Jaskowski and Biruk (2011) agreed that the simulation
experience and associated company. Part two was related
model developed by Dawood (1998) is a quantitative
delay analysis model which considered the impact of each to the performance of the projects, involved by
delay factor independently for predicting durations of respondents. Part three included a list of 75 delay factors,
which identified from literature related in construction
activities and whole project. Therefore, the research
project. These factors were further classified into four (4)
presented in this paper seeks to integrate the delay factors
categories and eight (8) sub-categories according to the
within the simulation model of delay analysis system to
sources of delay.
predict the activity or project durations, considering the
influence of each risk factor independently. Delay factors listed in the questionnaire are related to
Considering the above points, it is concluded that the project, owner, contractor, consultant, materials,
equipment, manpower (labour), project management and
causes and effects of delay factors in construction
external factors. For each delay factor, two questions
industry vary from country to country due to
were asked: What is the frequency of occurrence and the
environmental, topographical and technological
degree of severity of each factor? Both frequency of

18
KICEM Journal of Construction Engineering and Project Management
 Abdulhamid Shebob, Nashwan Dawood, and Raj K. Shah

occurrence and severity were measured on a four-point Where a is the constant expressing weighting given to
rating scales because the four point scales provides better each response (ranges from 1 for no effect up to 4 for
results in case of measuring frequency and severity of a very severe), n is the frequency of the responses, and N is
factors. These scales also have been used widely by total number of responses. Importance Weight: The
several research in past with satisfactory results in the importance index of each factor is calculated as a
engineering and applied science. Frequency of occurrence function of both frequency and severity index.
was categorised: never, occasionally, frequently and
constantly (1 to 4 rating scale). Similarly, degree of
severity was categorised: No effect, fairly severe, severe …............................................ (3)
and very severe (1 to 4 rating scale). The responses were
collected from the construction projects in Libya.
The ranking results are presented in Appendix-A. The
appendix shows the Importance Weight (IW) of each
B. Data collection
delay factor and its rank on frequency and severity scale
A random sampling was employed to select the separately.
potential respondents: construction companies,
consultants and owners in Libya. A total of 125 D. Results of survey
questionnaires were distributed to the randomly identified
The delay factors associated with construction projects
respondents. A total of 72 out of 125 (57.6%) responses
were grouped into four main categories (contractors,
were received. The details of survey including the
consultant, owners and externals factors) as shown in
questionnaire distribution and the respective number of
Table 2. Furthermore, the analysis with Importance Index
responses are presented in Table 1.
(II) for a particular category of delay factors is practical
TABLE I and valuable in determining the average Importance
NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS Index (II) of all categories Kometa et al (1994).
Questionnaires Contractors Consultants Owners Total Accordingly, another method of Important Index (II) was
Distributed 38 45 42 125 identified in order to take into account the number of
Respondents 24 20 28 72 causes for each category thus ranking these categories.
That was multiplying the AW of the category by the
C. Survey data analysis modulus of the number of the causes of the category. This
was calculated as shown below
This section discusses the survey data analysis. A
method called “importance-based rank” is utilised for a ................................................................. (4)
group ranking of each professional group (contractors,
consultants and owners). Moreover, three ways are used
for ranking all delay factors, subcategories rank, and main Whereas,
categories rank. The analysis and discussion of ranking M = the number of category delay factors
focuses directly on the importance of delay factors rather Total number of all delay factors
than ranking them based on frequency and severity
separately. The ranking analysis methods suggested by AW = Average weight
Assaf and Al-Hejji (2006) such Frequency Index (FI),
Severity Index (SI) and Importance Weight (IW) were TABLE II
used to analyse the survey data and discuss the survey IMPORTANCE INDEX (II) OF MAIN CATEGORIES BY RESPONDENT
results. Frequency index method was selected for the Ctg M AW II RANK
ranking of each delay factor considering the frequency of CON 0.177 2.146 0.393 4
occurrence identified by participants in the survey. OWN 0.187 2.248 0.418 3
CNS 0.133 3.621 0.628 1
Other 0.198 2.419 0.420 2
…...................... (1)

Moreover, the delays factors were also grouped into

eight sub-categories as shown in Table 3. The details of
Where a is the constant expressing weighting given to survey results related to all subcategories of delay factors
each response (ranges from 1 for never up to 4 for are discussed below.
constantly), n is the frequency of the responses, and N is
total number of responses
Similarly, severity index method was selected to rank
delay factors based on severity as indicated by the
participants.

…...................... (2)

19
Vol.2, No.3 / Sep 2012
 Development of a methodology for analysing and quantifying the impact of delay factors affecting construction projects

TABLE III Following the findings from the literature review and
IMPORTANCE INDEX (II) AND RANK OF DELAY SUBCATEGORIES
industry survey, a conceptual framework was introduced
Sub Ctg M AW II RANK to analyse the impact of delay factors in a building
C/MP 0.080 2.746 0.220 8 construction project. The next section discusses the input,
process and output the proposed framework
C/EQ 0.160 1.854 0.297 6
C/MT 0.160 2.389 0.382 5
IV. DEVELOPMENT OF A FRAMEWORK OF DELAY ANALYSIS
C/PM 0.307 1.595 0.490 2
SYSTEM
OWN 0.187 2.248 0.420 4
CNS 0.133 3.362 0.447 3 A conceptual framework of the DAS was designed to
EP 0.133 2.138 0.284 7 analyse the critical delay factors and quantify the impact
EF 0.400 2.701 1.081 1 of the delay factors in a construction project. The list of
Ctg: category, AW: average weight, II: importance index the critical delay factors were identified by analysing the
M: modulus of the number of the factors in the delay category collected data from the industry survey. Figure 1 presents
CON: contractor, MP: manpower, EQ: equipment, MT: material
PM: project management, OWN: owner, CNS: consultant
conceptual framework of the DAS, which is arranged into
EP: early planning and design, EF: external factor inputs, process and outputs. The figure used in this paper
represents a research methodology for the analysis of
Moreover, the delay factors were also ranked into eight impacts due to possible delay factors in construction
sub-categories and the survey results are presented in projects.
Table 3 above. The survey results revealed that the delay The details of inputs, process and outputs of the DAS
due to materials found at fourth important sub-category. are discussed in next sections.
Similarly, the delay due to equipment found at seventh
rank. Manpower subcategory of delay factor was ranked A. Inputs of the DAS framework
as the second positions. The main inputs of the DAS are: a list of critical delay
Furthermore, the project management sub-category factors, Important Weight (IW), and a list of the critical
was ranked as eighth position. The consultant sub- activities of a construction project. The IW of delay
categories were ranked as first, whereas the owner sub- factors were identified from a Libyan construction
categories ranked as fifth for responsible for delay in industry by analysing the frequency and severity of each
construction projects. Finally, the early planning and delay factor as discussed above. The list of project
design subcategory ranked sixth whereas, the external activities in a building project is analysed using Critical
factors sub-categories were ranked third as shows in Path Method CPM to identify the critical activities. These
Table 3. critical activities are a key input in the DAS because
these activities are responsible for the delay of a project
and overrun the project cost.

Input Processes Output

List of critical delay Selection of delay factors Estimation of possible

factors in each critical activity with duration of each critical
influence value activity in a project

Generation of random
IW of each critical number based on the Quantification of possible
delay factors selected types of duration in a project based
distribution using Monte
Carlo Simulator technique on selected delay factors

List of critical
Calculation of activity Sensitivity report of the
activities and their
duration duration by integrating critical delay factors
random number and
influence value

FIGURE I
SPECIFICATION OF THE SIMULATION MODEL OF DAS

20
KICEM Journal of Construction Engineering and Project Management
 Abdulhamid Shebob, Nashwan Dawood, and Raj K. Shah

Moreover, the critical activities of a project are For example, a critical activity, which have four
considered for analysing impact of delay in the DAS different types of delays factors (Cause Id No: 69, 64, 43,
because the duration of the critical activities are 8), affect the duration of the critical activity (see Table 4).
considered to identify the project duration and these The calculation of Influence of each delay factors is
activities have high impact on overall project delay. In presented in Table 4 below.
this conceptual model of the DAS, the near critical
activities are not integrated because these activities have TABLE IV
THE CRITICAL DELAY FACTORS AND THEIR IMPACT VALUE FACING IN
less impact compared to the critical activities even though
CRITICAL ACTIVITY
risk factors are analysed for both critical and near critical Critical The critical delay factors
activities. Each activity in the critical path is called as Causes Influence
activity in Libyan construction IW
ID NO of factors
critical activity since the total float of each critical No industry
activity is equal to zero. The delay in one activity in waiting time for
approval of drawings
critical path has an impact in the whole project. Therefore, 69
and test samples of
76.73 0.29
only critical activities were taken into account to analyse materials
the impact of delay factors in a construction project. In Severe weather
the DAS, critical activities and relevant delay factors are conditions on the job 65.27 0.25
64 site
the key inputs for analysing the impact of the delay in a Delay in furnishing and
construction project. For example, the duration and slack 2
delivering the site to the 82.93 0.31
time of each critical activity of a project which is 43 contractor by the owner
considered as inputs of the DAS are shown in Appendix-
Inadequate equipment 41.32 0.16
B. The process of the DAS is discussed in next section 8 used for the works

266.25 1.00
B. Process of delay analysis system
The process of the DAS system was divided into four
sub-sections: the identification of influence value of each Similarly, all critical activities of the building projects
critical delay factor, the selection of the delay factors were analysed. Influence factors of critical activities
affecting each critical activity, the identification of risk were determined by considering IW of each delay factors
distribution for generating random numbers, and the that were calculated from survey aiming to incorporate in
integration of delay factors with critical activity. The Mont Carlo Simulation (MCS). The delay impact of each
details of process including the Mont Carlo Simulation critical activity was analysed and combined with
(MCS) technique are discussed as follows. associated delay factors to determine the delay of a
construction project.
1) Selection of delay factors affecting each critical
activity 2) Generation of random number
The possible types and numbers of critical delay Random numbers for each delay factor are generated
factors, affecting each critical activity were selected from a particular representative distribution. The random
through site knowledge base approach. The site values are generated between minimum and maximum (0,
knowledge was collected from construction professionals 1) using the Monte Carlo simulation technique assuming
through interviews) during the construction industry a suitable risk distribution. There are different types of
survey. The influence value of each delay factor is random distribution values such as uniform, triangular,
calculated using the equation 5, which is the ratio of IW normal and beta. The type of distribution can vary from
of each delay factor to the sum of IW of all delay factors, one activity to another activity (Dawood, 1998). However,
affecting a critical activity. The IW of each delay factor this depends on the types of (risk) delay factors and their
was identified by analysing the survey data, collected nature of impact on each critical activity in a project and
through the industry survey. Each activity has (risk) delay these aspects were considered for assuming the risk
factors where the total influence of all risk factors should distribution for delay analysis in this system. The risk
be 100% for an activity. In this study, equation 5 is used distribution types depends on the nature of delay factors,
to calculate the influence values of each delay factor as which is selected past experience and knowledge of
below. construction professionals through construction industry
survey.
Influence of each delay factor = ..................... (5)
3) Integration of random number and influence value
Whereas, The equation developed by Dawood 1998 was used in
the DAS to calculate the possible duration of activity
considering the impact of delay factors because the
IW = Important Weight of each critical delay factor. equation assist to quantify the expected project duration
n = Number of delay factors affecting each critical considering the impacts of delay factors affecting each
activity critical activity. The equation also helps to
identify/predict the best possible duration of the activity.

21
Vol.2, No.3 / Sep 2012
 Development of a methodology for analysing and quantifying the impact of delay factors affecting construction projects

Therefore, this method was considered for calculation of V. CASE STUDY DEMONSTRATION
the possible duration of a project in this study. The
A case study is used to evaluate the functions of the
random numbers and influence values are a multiple
DAS. The selected building project for the case study was
factor. This is used to estimate the best possible duration
completed on a turnkey contract basis and the project
of each critical activity. The possible duration of each
value was around £ 10 million. The required data for
critical activity in a project is identified/predicted using
inputs of the DAS such as project activities and delay
the equation 6 developed by Dawood (1998), shown
factors affecting the building project were collected from
below.
the construction company that completed the project.
This input was processed as discussed in the above
Duration of activity = Min Time + [Max Time – Min
sections.
Time] x [(RF1 x Random1) + (RF2 x Random2) +
A. Results and discussion
(RF3 xRandom3) + (RF n x Random n)...]................. (6)
This section outlines about results and discussion of the
case study. The input was processed as discussed above.
Whereas;
After running the DAS, the possible durations of the
Min Time is the minimum that can be assigned to an building project were identified as shown in Figure 2 and
activity. Figure 3. The results found that the minimum, mean and
Max Time is the maximum that can be assigned to an maximum duration of the building project are 463, 476.61
activity. and 469.92 days. The case study results revealed that the
Random 1 = random numbers generated by MCS for mean duration of project was found to be higher than the
selected type of risk distribution planned duration (373 days) after considering the impact
RF n is the influence of delay factor (n) on a particular of delay factors. This confirmed that the project might
activity. delayed by 97 days when comparing the planned duration
RF n=Influence factor =

The minimum and maximum duration of each activity

used in the DAS were identified using the site
information and knowledge of construction manager
through site meeting. After identifying the duration of
each critical activity, equation 6 is used to identify/predict
the best possible duration of the activity, considering the
impacts of delay factors affecting each activity in a
construction project. The results of the most critical delay
factors and their impact value are shown in Appendix-C.

C. Outputs of delay analysis system

The outputs of the DAS are the possible duration of a
FIGURE II
construction project and the sensitivity report of each DISTRIBUTION OF POSSIBLE PROJECT DURATION
critical delay factor affecting the project. This includes
the maximum, mean and minimum possible duration of
each critical activity and the whole project. The outputs
are produced by processing the inputs through the DAS
using equation 6 as discussed above. Moreover, the
system also provides a sensitivity report of all critical
delay factors, considered in the system for analysing the
impact of delay. This sensitivity report provides
information about the sensitivity of each critical delay
factor (which delay factors have high influence in project
duration in comparison to others). The possible delay in a
project is identified by comparing the project duration
between actual project duration and the system generated
project duration. The introduced DAS in this study is FIGURE 3
expected to assist construction managers in analysing the DISTRIBUTION OF POSSIBLE PROJECT DURATION
construction resources, and reducing the impact of delay
factors in terms of time and quality in a construction B. Sensitivity report of delay factors
project.
A sensitivity analysis and the correlation coefficient
with different delay factors of the case study were
performed. The graphical outputs of the sensitivity

22
KICEM Journal of Construction Engineering and Project Management
 Abdulhamid Shebob, Nashwan Dawood, and Raj K. Shah

analysis and results of correlation coefficient are A case study was demonstrated to evaluate the
presented in (Figures 4 and 5). The sensitivity analysis functions of the introduced delay analyse system by
results showed that the delay in supervision, poor analysing and quantify the impact of delay factors in a
planning, shortage of required materials, changes in the building project using the IW of delay factors. The
scope of the project, incomplete design documents, simulation result showed that the building project might
severe weather conditions on the job site, delay in be delayed by 97 to 103 days from the planned project
material delivery, financial problems, interference by the duration when a total of 24 most critical delay factors
owner in the construction operations, delay in the apply. The project might be delayed by more days if a
settlement of contractor claims by the owner and rise in total of seventy five delay factors were considered.
the price of material were the highly sensitive delays
factors in the building project. The findings of the case study show an indicative
figure of the possible delay in terms of time when
considering the critical delay factors affecting a
construction project. The key contribution of this study is
a methodology development for analysing and
quantifying the impact of delay factors in construction
projects through better investigated, understood and
documented report. The system is expected to help
policymakers, decision makers and other stakeholders
within the construction industry to gain a fuller
understanding of the industry, enabling them to make
efficient decisions to formulate short and long-term
construction strategies and policies aiming to improve the
industry's processes and operations.
FIGURE IV
CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR PROJECT DURATION BETWEEN DELAY REFERENCES
FACTORS AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENT
[1] A.A. Bubshait, M.J. Cunningham, “Comparison of delay analysis
methodologies”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, vol. 124, no. 4, pp. 315-322, 1998.
[2] S. AbouRizk, P. Knowles, U.R. Hermann, “Estimating labor
production rates for industrial construction activities”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 127, no. 6, pp.
502- 511, 2001.
[3] O. Abdelnaser, J. Peter, A. Mahmood, A. Hussin, H. Aziz,
“Causes of construction delays”, case studies in Langkawi Island,
Malaysia, Paper presented at International Conference on built
environmental in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, organized by
University of Malaya, 2005.
[4] S.M. Ahmed, S. Azhar, P. Kappagntula, D. Gollapudil, “Delays in
construction: a brief study of the Florida construction industry”,
Proceedings of the 39th Annual ASC Conference, Clemson
University, Clemson, SC, USA, pp. 257-266, 2003.
[5] W.A.M. Alaghbari, “Factors affecting construction speed of
FIGURE V industrialized building systems in Malaysia”, Master's thesis,
GRAPHICAL RESULT OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS University Putra Malaysia, Serdang, 2005.
[6] A.H. Al-Moumani, “Construction Delay: a quantitative analyses”,
VI. CONCLUSIONS International Journal of Project Management, vol. 18, no. 1, pp.
51-59, 2000.
The research study has introduced a new methodology [7] S.A. Assaf, M. Al-Khalil, M. Al-Hazmi, “Causes of Delay in
to analyse and quantify the impact of delay factors by Large Building Construction Projects”, Journal of Project
Management in Engineering, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 45-50, 1995.
developing a delay analysis system (simulation model). A [8] D.K.H. Chua, Y.C. Kog, P.K. Loh, E.J. Jaselskis, “Model for
framework of the system was developed using the construction budget performance neural network approach”,
findings from the literature review and industry survey in Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 123,
Libyan construction projects. A total of seventy five delay no. 3, pp. 214-222, 1997.
[9] N. Dawood, “Estimating project and activity duration: a risk
factors, considered most common in building management approach using network analysis”, Construction
construction, were listed from literature review to identify Management and Economics, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 41- 48, 1998.
the importance weight (IW) of each delay factor by [10] Y. Frimpong, J. Oluwoye, I. Crawford, “Statistical methods”, 2nd
conducting the industry survey and ranking those factors ed., Academic, New York, 2003.
[11] General People's Committee, Regarding permission for investors
using frequency and severity index methods. These delay to execute their investment activities in Libya, decision no. (22)
factors were classified into eight subcategories and four 2003.
main categories related to owner, consultants, contractors [12] A.S. Hanna, M. Gunduz, “Early warning signs for distressed
and others. The survey results found that the rank levels projects”, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 32, no. 5,
pp. 796-802, 2005.
of delay factors were different from the views of three
parties’ contractor, consultant and owner.

23
Vol.2, No.3 / Sep 2012
 Development of a methodology for analysing and quantifying the impact of delay factors affecting construction projects

[13] P. Jaskowski, S. Biruk, “The conceptual framework for

construction project risk assessment”, Reliability: Theory &
Applications, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 27-35, 2011.
[14] E.J. Jaselskis, D.B. Ashley, “Optimal allocation of project
management resources for achieving success”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 117, no. 2, pp.
321-340, 1991.
[15] Y.C. Kog, D.K.H Chua, P.K. Loh, E.J. Jaselskis, “Key
determinants for construction schedule performance”,
International Journal of Project Management, vol. 17, no. 6, pp.
351-359, 1999.
[16] S.T. Kometa, P.O. Olomolaiye, F.C. Harris, “Attributes of UK
construction clients influencing project consultants' performance”,
Journal of Construction Management and Economics, vol. 12, no.
5, pp 433-443, 1994.
[17] S. Lee, D.W. Halpin, “Predictive tool for estimating accident risk”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 129,
no. 4, pp. 431-436, 2003.
[18] N.R. Mansfield, “Causes of delay and cost overruns in Nigerian
construction project”, International Journal of Project
Management, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 254-260, 1994.
[19] M. Mezher, W. Tawil, “Causes of delays in the construction
industry Lebanon”, Engineering Construction and Architectural
Management, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 251-260, 1998.
[20] C.A.R. Morano, C.G. Martins, M.L.R. Ferreira, “Application of
techniques for the identification of risk in the E & P ventures
Engevista”, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 120-133, 2006.
[21] R. Sonmez, J.E. Rowings, “Construction labor productivity
modelling with neural networks”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, vol. 124, no. 6, pp. 498-504, 1998.
[22] S.O. Ogunlana, K. Prokuntong, V. Jearkjirm, “Construction
Delays in Fast Growing Economy Comparing Thailand with Other
Economies”, International Journal of Project Management, vol.
14, no. 1, pp. 37-45, 1996.
[23] W. Alaghbari, M.R.A. Kadir, A. Salim, Ernawati “The significant
factors causing delay of building construction projects in
Malaysia”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 192-206, 2007.
[24] Y. Kim, K. Kim, D. Shin, “Delay Analysis Method Using Delay
Section” Journal of construction engineering and management,
vol. 131, no. 11, pp. 1155-1164, 2005.
[25] E.K. Zaneldin, “Construction claims in United Arab Emirates:
Types, causes, and frequency”, International Journal of Project
Management, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 453-459, 2006.
[26] T.M. Zayed, D.W. Halpin, “Pile Construction Productivity
Assessment”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, vol. 131, no. 6, pp. 705-714, 2005.

24
KICEM Journal of Construction Engineering and Project Management
 Abdulhamid Shebob, Nashwan Dawood, and Raj K. Shah

APPENDIX
APPENDIX - A: IMPORTANCE WEIGHT, IMPORTANCE INDEX AND RANKING SCALE OF EACH DELAY FACTORS BY THE THREE PARTY’S LIBYAN
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
a) Ranking of the delay factors identified in Libyan construction projects from “Contractors” aspects
No Delays Factors Ctg IW R II Rank
2 Delay in materials delivery C/TM 74.33 24 2.894 1
10 Low skill of manpower C/MP 62.50 24 2.604 2
69 Waiting time for approval drawings and test samples of materials EF 60.22 24 2.509 3
70 External work due to public agencies( roads, and public services EF 58.62 24 2.443 4
75 Rework due to errors during construction EF 57.82 24 2.409 5
5 Shortage of required equipment C/EQ 57.80 24 2.408 6
1 Shortage of required materials C/MT 57.01 24 2.375 7
64 Severe weather conditions on the job site EF 53.93 24 2.247 8
65 Rise in the prices of materials EF 52.28 24 2.178 9
61 Ambiguities, mistakes, and inconsistencies of drawing EP 47.66 24 1.986 10
13 Shortage of technical professionals in contractor’s organization C/PM 46.99 24 1.958 11
35 Rework due to errors activities during construction the project C/PM 46.98 24 1.957 12
22 Improper technical studies by contractor during the bidding stage C/PM 46.42 24 1.934 13
68 Poor economic conditions, (currency, inflation rate, est.) EF 46.34 24 1.931 14
31 Delay in sub-contractor work C/PM 46.33 24 1.930 15
74 Unstable laws and regulation EF 46.20 24 1.925 16
28 Improper construction methods implemented by the contractor C/PM 44.41 24 1.850 17
32 Problems between the contractor and his subcontractors C/PM 43.43 24 1.810 18
12 Shortage of contractor’s administrative personnel C/PM 39.50 24 1.646 19
20 Loose safety rules and regulations within contractor’s organization C/PM 38.41 24 1.600 20
7 Shortage of supporting and shoring installations for excavations C/EQ 37.75 24 1.573 21
29 Difficulties in financing the project by the contractor C/PM 37.60 24 1.567 22
34 Poor site management and supervision by contractor C/PM 37.43 24 1.560 23
23 Ineffective planning and scheduling of the project by contractor C/PM 37.13 24 1.547 24
67 Poor site conditions (location, ground, etc) EF 35.49 24 1.520 25
4 Changes in materials specifications C/MT 35.21 24 1.467 26
16 Slow preparations of change orders required C/PM 34.64 24 1.443 27
60 Changes in the scope of the project EP 33.85 24 1.410 28
25 Ineffective control of project progress by the contractor C/PM 33.15 24 1.381 29
24 Delays to field survey by the contractor C/PM 32.82 24 1.368 30
62 Subsurface site conditions differing from contract document EP 32.23 24 1.343 31
15 Contractor 's poor coordination with other parties in project C/PM 32.22 24 1.341 32
14 Poor communication between contractor with other parties C/PM 32.21 24 1.340 33
27 Delay in the preparation of contractor submission C/PM 31.05 24 1.294 34
3 Changes in materials prices C/MT 30.47 24 1.270 35
11 Lack of motivation of contractor's members C/PM 29.91 24 1.246 36
17 Ineffective contractor head office involvement in the project C/PM 29.17 24 1.215 37
8 Inadequate equipment used for the works C/EQ 28.46 24 1.186 38
63 Original contract duration is too short EP 24.99 24 1.041 39
66 Lack of equipment and tools on the market EF 23.4 24 0.975 40
26 Inefficient quality control by the contractor C/PM 22.95 24 0.956 41
21 Poor qualifications of contractor’s staff assigned to the project C/PM 21.88 24 0.912 42
9 Shortage of manpower (skilled, semi-skilled, unskilled labour) C/MP 19.57 24 0.815 43
27 Delay in the preparation of contractor submission C/PM 19.05 24 0.794 44
19 Poor controlling of subcontractors by contractor C/PM 19.04 24 0.793 45
c) Ranking of the delay factors identified in Libyan construction projects from “Owners” aspects
No Delays Factors Ctg IW R II Rank
9 Shortage of manpower (skilled and unskilled labour) MP 95.58 28 3.414 1
45 Delay in the settlement of contractor claims by the owner OWN 88.73 28 3.169 2
60 Waiting time for approval of drawings and test materials EF 84.45 28 3.016 3
43 Delay to delivering the site to the contractor by owner OWN 82.93 28 2.962 4
41 Contract modifications (replacement and addition of new work) OWN 82.03 28 2.93 5
2 Delay in materials delivery MT 81.31 28 2.904 6
64 Severe weather conditions on the job site EF 78.91 28 2.818 7
48 Interference by the owner in the construction operations OWN 74.98 28 2.678 8
42 Financial problems (delayed payments, and economic problems) OWN 74.08 28 2.646 9
10 Low skill of manpower MP 72.31 28 2.588 10
60 Changes in the scope of the project EP 68.19 28 2.435 11
70 External work due to public agencies ( roads, public services) EF 67.47 28 2.41 12
36 Lack of experience of owner in construction OWN 65.37 28 2.334 13
65 Rise in the prices of materials EF 64.5 28 2.304 14
1 Shortage of required materials MT 63.80 28 2.279 15
61 Ambiguities, mistakes, and inconsistencies of drawings EP 62.28 28 2.224 16
7 Shortage of supporting and shoring from the consultants EQ 59.55 28 2.127 17

25
Vol.2, No.3 / Sep 2012
 Development of a methodology for analysing and quantifying the impact of delay factors affecting construction projects

40 Lack of coordination with contractors OWN 57.59 28 2.057 18

46 Delay in issuing of change orders by the owner OWN 56.87 28 2.031 19
4 Changes in materials specifications MT 54.89 28 1.960 20
47 Slow decision making by the owner organisation OWN 53.59 28 1.914 21
44 Unrealistic contract duration OWN 44.83 28 1.601 22
68 Poor economic conditions (currency, inflation rate, etc.) EF 41.92 28 1.496 23
37 Improper project feasibility study OWN 39.99 28 1.428 24
49 Delay in progress payments by the owner OWN 38.41 28 1.372 25
66 Lack of equipment and tools on the market EF 37.82 28 1.351 26
5 Shortage of required equipment EQ 35.24 28 1.259 27
39 Slowness in making decisions OWN 30.61 28 1.093 28
3 Changes in materials prices MT 29.59 28 1.057 29
38 Lack of working knowledge OWN 29.55 28 1.055 30
6 Failure of equipment EQ 29.53 28 1.054 31
74 Unstable laws and regulation EF 27.46 28 0.981 32
8 Inadequate equipment used the works EQ 27.45 28 0.980 33
75 Rework due to errors during construction EF 25.43 28 0.979 34
67 Poor site conditions (location, ground, etc.) EP 25.41 28 0.977 35
73 Slow site clearance EF 25.41 28 0.975 36
b) Ranking of the delay factors identified in Libyan construction projects from “Consultants” aspects
No Delays Factors Ctg IW R II Rank
50 Poor qualification of consultant engineer’s staff CNS 90.25 20 4.513 1
3 Changes in materials prices MT 90.23 20 4.332 2
60 Changes in the scope of the project EP 86.63 20 4.523 3
69 Waiting time for approval of drawings and test of materials EF 85.52 20 4.275 4
56 Delayed and slow supervision in making decisions CNS 84.41 20 4.221 5
52 Delay in the approval of consultant submissions by the consultant CNS 83.24 20 4.163 6
57 Poor planning and incomplete contract documents CNS 83.2 20 4.16 7
9 Shortage of manpower (skilled, semi-skilled, unskilled labour) PM 73.24 20 3.662 8
61 Ambiguities, mistakes, and inconsistencies of drawings EP 72.63 20 3.651 9
10 Low skill of manpower PM 72.11 20 3.605 10
8 Inadequate equipment used for the works EQ 68.06 20 3.403 11
54 Slow response and poor inspection CNS 66.02 20 3.301 12
53 Poor design and delays in design CNS 63.85 20 3.193 13
63 Original contract duration is too short EP 63.75 20 3.187 14
58 Slowness in giving instruction CNS 63.00 20 3.150 15
64 Severe weather conditions on the job site EF 62.97 20 3.148 16
65 Rise in the prices of materials EF 62.00 20 3.100 17
51 Delay in the preparation of drawings CNS 59.63 20 2.982 18
75 Rework due to errors during construction EF 54.25 20 2.713 19
55 Absence of consultant’s site staff CNS 50.63 20 2.531 20
4 Changes in materials specifications MT 49.79 20 2.489 21
1 Shortage of required materials MT 49.00 20 2.450 22
6 Failure of equipment EQ 48.00 20 2.430 23
62 Subsurface site conditions materially differing from contract EP 44.53 20 2.226 24
5 Shortage of required equipment EQ 43.64 20 2.182 25
67 Poor site conditions (location, ground, etc.) EF 39.84 20 1.992 26
70 External work due to public agencies ( roads, and public services EF 36.56 20 1.828 27
74 Unstable laws and regulation EF 35.94 20 1.797 28
66 Lack of equipment and tools on the market EF 33.00 20 1.650 29
73 Slow site clearance EF 32.67 20 1.633 30
59 Poor communication between the consultant and other parties CNS 32.65 20 1.632 31
7 Shortage of supporting and shoring installations for excavations EQ 32.62 20 1.623 32
68 Poor economic conditions (currency, inflation rate, etc.) EF 32.59 20 1.621 33

26
KICEM Journal of Construction Engineering and Project Management
 Abdulhamid Shebob, Nashwan Dawood, and Raj K. Shah

APPENDICES - B: THE CRITICAL WORK ACTIVITIES IDENTIFIED BY MS PROJECT

IN THE CASE STUDY, MS PROJECT USED TO IDENTIFY THE CRITICAL ACTIVITIES OF THE BUILDING PROJECT SO THAT DELAY IN EACH
CRITICAL ACTIVITY CAN ANALYSE AND IDENTIFIED POSSIBLE DELAY DUE TO THE DELAY FACTORS. DURATION AND SLACK TIME OF
EACH ACTIVITY OF THE PROJECT ARE SHOWN BELOW.

Project planning of critical work activities identified by Ms Project

27
Vol.2, No.3 / Sep 2012
 Development of a methodology for analysing and quantifying the impact of delay factors affecting construction projects

APPENDICES - C: THE MOST CRITICAL DELAY FACTORS WITH IMPACT VALUE AND RANDOM NUMBERS FOR EACH DELAY FACTOR IN CASE STUDY

Activity Random Random Random Random Random Rand 1 Rand 2 Rand 3 Ran 4 Rand 5 Duration of
No 1 2 3 4 5 RF 1 RF 2 RF 3 RF 4 RF 5 activity
C ID C ID
C ID 2 C ID 64 C ID 69 C ID 2
64 69
13 0.60 0.63 0.62 0.35 0.3 0.35 4.09
14 0.66 0.60 0.63 0.35 0.3 0.35 4.11
C ID C ID C ID
C ID 1 C ID 56 C ID 65
1 56 65
15 0.57 0.60 0.50 0.28 0.42 0.30 5.06
16 0.60 0.63 0.59 0.28 0.42 0.30 5.11
17 0.63 0.63 0.65 0.28 0.42 0.30 1.03
C ID C ID C ID
C ID 1 C ID 46 C ID 60
1 46 60
19 0.60 0.57 0.53 0.28 0.41 0.31 2.03
20 0.55 0.56 0.63 0.28 0.41 0.31 4.06
21 0.63 0.66 0.63 0.28 0.41 0.31 4.11
C ID C ID C ID
C ID 42 C ID 57 C ID 65
42 57 65
22 0.60 0.63 0.62 0.34 0.38 0.28 5.12
23 0.65 0.59 0.62 0.34 0.38 0.28 5.12
24 0.6 0.56 0.63 0.34 0.38 0.28 1.02
C ID C ID C ID
C ID 42 C ID 48 C ID 57 42 48 57
26 0.63 0.60 0.63 0.23 0.37 0.40 2.05
27 0.65 0.60 0.60 0.23 0.37 0.40 4.09
28 0.63 0.62 0.56 0.23 0.37 0.40 4.08
C ID C ID C ID
C ID 2 C ID 5 C ID 56
2 5 56
29 0.60 0.62 0.63 0.37 0.22 0.41 5.12
30 0.57 0.63 0.60 0.37 0.22 0.41 5.10
31 0.62 0.65 0.62 0.37 0.22 0.41 1.03
C ID C ID C ID C
C ID 45 C ID 51 C ID 61 C ID 65
45 51 61 ID65
33 0.62 0.63 0.66 0.66 0.32 0.26 0.22 0.20 2.06
34 0.66 0.65 0.63 0.64 0.32 0.26 0.22 0.20 4.12
35 0.62 0.60 0.63 0.65 0.32 0.26 0.22 0.20 4.10
C ID C ID C ID
C ID 5 C ID 36 C ID 53
5 36 53
36 0.60 0.63 0.65 0.26 0.37 0.37 5.13
37 0.66 0.63 0.64 0.26 0.37 0.37 5.14
38 0.63 0.63 0.66 0.26 0.37 0.37 1.03
C ID C ID C ID C
C ID 40 C ID 47 C ID 55 C ID 58
40 47 55 ID58
40 0.63 0.63 0.65 0.65 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.28 2.06
41 0.66 0.65 0.60 0.63 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.28 4.11
42 0.64 0.65 0.65 0.66 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.28 4.12
C ID C ID C ID
C ID 2 C ID 51 C ID 65
2 51 65
43 0.63 0.62 0.66 0.37 0.35 0.28 5.14
44 0.63 0.62 0.64 0.37 0.35 0.28 5.13
45 0.65 0.64 0.66 0.37 0.35 0.28 1.03
C ID C ID C ID
C ID 1 C ID 42 C ID 48 1 42 48
47 0.60 0.66 0.64 0.28 0.36 0.36 2.05
48 0.65 0.62 0.60 0.28 0.36 0.36 4.10
49 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.28 0.36 0.36 4.12
C ID C ID
C ID 1 C ID 2 C ID 3 C ID 5 C ID 45
C ID 1 C ID 2 C ID 3 5 45
50 0.63 0.61 0.63 0.64 0.60 0.18 0.24 0.16 0.14 0.28 5.12
51 0.62 0.64 0.64 0.62 0.66 0.18 0.24 0.16 0.14 0.28 5.14
52 0.56 0.60 0.64 0.65 0.63 0.18 0.24 0.16 0.14 0.28 1.02
C ID C ID C ID
C ID 42 C ID 57 C ID 60
42 57 60
70 0.63 0.65 0.65 0.34 0.38 0.29 14.43
C ID C ID C ID
C ID 2 C ID 41 C ID 46
2 41 46
122 0.60 0.62 0.61 0.31 0.34 0.35 20.43
124 0.63 0.64 0.62 0.31 0.34 0.35 20.52
126 0.63 0.66 0.63 0.31 0.34 0.35 20.56
128 0.56 0.62 0.60 0.31 0.34 0.35 20.38
130 0.60 0.63 0.66 0.31 0.34 0.35 20.53
132 0.64 0.65 0.66 0.31 0.34 0.35 20.59
134 0.65 0.63 0.62 0.31 0.34 0.35 20.53

28
KICEM Journal of Construction Engineering and Project Management
 Abdulhamid Shebob, Nashwan Dawood, and Raj K. Shah

136 0.63 0.66 0.66 0.31 0.34 0.35 20.60

C ID C ID C ID
C ID 42 C ID 57 C ID 60 C ID 65
42 57 60 C ID 65
139 0.60 0.61 0.60 0.63 0.26 0.30 0.22 0.22 20.44
141 0.62 0.63 0.65 0.61 0.26 0.30 0.22 0.22 20.50
143 0.66 0.65 0.64 0.63 0.26 0.30 0.22 0.22 20.58
145 0.64 0.63 0.65 0.65 0.26 0.30 0.22 0.22 20.57
147 0.63 0.66 0.65 0.66 0.26 0.30 0.22 0.22 20.60
149 0.66 0.65 0.66 0.65 0.26 0.30 0.22 0.22 20.62
151 0.64 0.65 0.63 0.64 0.26 0.30 0.22 0.22 20.57
153 0.65 0.62 0.60 0.65 0.26 0.30 0.22 0.22 20.52
C ID: causes ID number, RF: risk factor

29
Vol.2, No.3 / Sep 2012