International Journal of Business and Economics Research

2020; 9(3): 130-139

http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/ijber
doi: 10.11648/j.ijber.20200903.16
ISSN: 2328-7543 (Print); ISSN: 2328-756X (Online)

Analysis of Critical Delay Factors in Construction Projects

with a Focus on Qatar
Aldana Abdulla Alsulaiti1, *, Laoucine Kerbache2
1
Department of Infrastructure and Civil Projects, Qatar Petroleum, Doha, Qatar
2
Division of Engineering and Decision Sciences, College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University and HEC Paris, Doha,
Qatar

Email address:
*
Corresponding author

To cite this article:

Aldana Abdulla Alsulaiti, Laoucine Kerbache. Analysis of Critical Delay Factors in Construction Projects with a Focus on Qatar.
International Journal of Business and Economics Research. Vol. 9, No. 3, 2020, pp. 130-139. doi: 10.11648/j.ijber.20200903.16

Received: April 10, 2020; Accepted: May 3, 2020; Published: May 14, 2020

Abstract: The growth of the construction industry, a major driving force for the Qatar National Vision (QNV) 2030, is
assessed in terms of its ability to maintain timely delivery, premium quality, and rigorous cost control. The purpose of this
study was to assess the critical delay factors in Qatari building construction projects according to complexity level and
determine methods to mitigate them. This study focused on three building categories, four- and five-star hotels, core and shell
office/commercial buildings, and worship buildings, constituting four complexity levels. The objectives were to determine the
relationship between the delay factors and project characteristics to mitigate the associated risks. A critical motivation for the
study was the assumption that some projects in Qatar exhibit very high costs per square meter owing to variations in their
execution phases. The methodology comprised case studies and interviews with project experts and was articulated around the
development of a complexity categorization framework to achieve the study objectives. The findings indicated that projects
with similar complexity levels and characteristics have common factors affecting their time performance. The impacts of
certain factors such as changes in scope were found to be significant for any building category at either a high or low
complexity level, while delay was shown to be smaller for lower complexity projects. The results support the assumption that
the very high costs per square meter of some projects in Qatar arise from variations. This paper demonstrates how a carefully
designed research methodology using an appropriate framework can enable identification of the most critical delay factors in
construction projects according to building category and complexity level. The focus on Qatar enabled the formulation of a
series of recommendations for construction industry decision-makers and operators as well as a policy proposals to
government entities and major stakeholders to streamline the construction process and mitigate critical delays. The findings of
this study provide insights into project time performance in terms of the selected project categories with various complexity
levels.

Keywords: Construction Delays, Causes of Delays, Project Management, Complexity Level, Qatar

outlay, litigation, and abandoned projects, and leaving a bad

1. Introduction impression on foreign investors based on poor management
As the global construction industry grows, delays and cost and weak organizational practices.
overruns have become some of the most common problems Owing to the complex nature and associated risks of
facing construction projects. Because the construction construction projects, effective project management plays a
industry is a medium for achieving national visions and pivotal role in the successful completion of such projects.
goals, project delays are a significant concern and can lead to Although projects have been implemented since the first
adverse consequences in terms of hindering economic human communities, project management was not
development, inducing cost overruns via significant capital distinguished as a profession until the mid-20th century.
Rapid advancements in modern technology have made
131 Aldana Abdulla Alsulaiti and Laoucine Kerbache: Analysis of Critical Delay Factors in Construction
Projects with a Focus on Qatar

project management a critical factor in all projects regardless of interaction among those entities can be classified as a
of scale or complexity. complex system [1].
Project delay, or completion beyond the planned deadline, Wood and Gidado [2] used insight’s from Merry’s [3]
arises from different factors such as project nature, size, and overview to note that complex behaviors that cannot be
various dimensions of complexity, including technological predicted from knowledge of the individual parts of a system
advancement. It is therefore crucial to identify primary delay can emerge from several basic rules. One method for
factors to properly manage construction projects and ensure discovering such rules is to study how system elements
timely performance. As construction projects vary in terms of interact with each another and how the system adapts and
complexity and nature, the ability to measure these factors at changes over time. Because construction is a highly risky,
an early stage can deepen the understanding of associated dynamic, and challenging industry [4], understanding and
risks and corresponding complexity characteristics. With this analyzing project complexity is critical to ensure effective
deeper understanding, project managers can take the actions management [5].
necessary to successfully deliver future projects. According to Baccarini [5], project complexity can be
Although the impact of construction project complexity on defined as “consisting of many varied interrelated parts and
delay has not been widely studied, there is an implicit can be operationalized in terms of differentiation and
assumption that delay factors in complex projects differ from interdependency.” This is applicable to any dimension of the
those in more straightforward projects, and that the former project management process, including organization,
are more subject to delay than the latter. This, assumption environment, technology, information, systems, and decision-
however, needs to be explicitly validated. Furthermore, most making. Accordingly, it is crucial to clearly identify the type
studies have linked delay factors to project type but not to of complexity of a project.
underlying project characteristics, which can provide a Complexity has various dimensions in construction
broader understanding of the issue. projects. Buys explained that complexity can be defined in
This study investigated common delay factors and their terms of project size [6], as large projects have more
impacts on specific building project categories with the goal extended execution periods and can experience greater cost
of linking delay to various project characteristics and and time overruns. Lengthy negotiations to manage inflation,
establishing a broader conclusion that can be applied to fluctuations in exchange rates, and the costs of the materials
projects in general. Specifically, this study focused on project affecting the initial project budget can lead to overruns.
complexity level to gain an understanding of underlying Similarly, highly complex projects contain complex
project characteristics. The geographic focus of this study aggregations of plans, schedules, and estimates. As a result,
was Qatar, which is home to one of the fastest-growing any omission of critical aspects will increase the risk of
construction markets worldwide. As Qatar prepares to host modification/change and cause delays. Project complexity
the FIFA World Cup in 2022 and strives to fulfill the can also be classified in terms of the diversity of
objectives of the Qatar National Vision (QNV) 2030, stakeholders. Different stakeholders will have different
investments of over USD 220 billion are being made at a rate interests, leading to long communication channels, inherently
of nearly USD 500 million per week to develop infrastructure slow feedback, disputes, and conflicts. Adequate time and
including mega projects such as the Doha Metro, stadiums, resources must therefore be allotted to successfully integrate
and new roads, and bridges, along with key projects such as these interests.
hotels and leisure and recreational destinations. The rapidly Based on interviews with several industry experts Gidado
expanding construction sector and the diversity of projects [7] proposed that, a complex project can be defined as one
needed to meet the obligations created by the government’s that requires the merging of several systems. This can lead to
economic reform initiatives as well as the QNV and FIFA confined sites that are difficult to access and difficulty in
2022 World Cup commitments provides an opportunity to clarifying approaches to achieve a desired goal; overcoming
investigate the relationship between delay factors in building these issues requires a significant amount of control,
construction projects and project complexity levels. A critical coordination, detailed execution, and appraisal throughout
motivation for this study was the assumption that some the project management process. Gidado further illustrated
projects in Qatar exhibit very high costs per square meter as a that project complexity can be seen from managerial,
result of the complexity of carrying out the execution phase, technological, and operational perspectives [7].
an assumption that was confirmed by the results of this study Defining complexity in the project management process is
and confirmed to be linked to critical delay factors. crucial because it determines the selection of project inputs,
provides criteria for selecting the right project organizational
2. Literature Review form, identifies hindrances to meeting project goals, provides
a criterion for choosing the correct procurement arrangement,
2.1. Complexity in Construction Projects and helps to control, coordinate, and plan project
requirements [5].
Complexity is difficult to define because it has several
connotations. According to Richardson, Lissack, and Cilliers, 2.2. Developed Complexity Categorization Framework
a system comprising many entities and requiring a high level
As complexity is a broad and potentially highly subjective
 International Journal of Business and Economics Research 2020; 9(3): 130-139 132

term, the types of complexity considered in this study were unique dimensions and environment of a project.
identified using a framework developed to categorize Three building categories constituting a total of four
projects based on a set of complexity characteristics. The complexity levels were defined based on the identified
selection of characteristics was guided by a literature review complexity characteristics. These categories are:
and interviews with different field experts, including 1. Category 1: Four- and five-star hotels,
executives and lead project managers, who had extensive 2. Category 2: (Groups A & B). Core and shell office or
experience with various types of projects. The goal was to commercial buildings including two complexity levels,
use their experience to define complexity while remaining 3. Category 3: Buildings used for worship.
cognizant that the meaning of complexity is not limited to a The factors defining this complexity categorization
set of typical characteristics and can vary depending on the framework are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Complexity categorization framework.

Category 1 Four- Category 2 Commercial/office buildings Category 3

Complexity characteristics to five-star hotel Worship
buildings Group A Group B buildings
a a
Project size
b b
Project cost
c c
Complex combinations of design, schedule, and estimations
d
Stakeholders’ diversity
e
Complex systems interactivity
f f f
Project customization
g g g g
Efficient coordination, control, and monitoring from start to finish
Total # of complexity points seven five two one

Note: The complexity categorization is based on a set of identified characteristics.

a Project size above 28,000 square meters (built-up area).
b Project cost above 90 million Qatari Riyal.
c Project contains complex combinations of design, schedule, and estimation.
d Project involves diverse stakeholders with high levels of power and interest.
e Project contains a large number of systems and technologies with a high level of interactivity.
f Project is customized, not based on a prototype.
g Project requires a high level of coordination, control, and monitoring from start to finish.

residential building, construction phase only." As a result of

2.2.1. Complexities Associated with Category 1 the high degree of risk involved in this process, complex
Hotels are generally more complex to develop and manage planning schedules and estimates must be developed and
than other building types because they tend to have a carefully managed.
considerable diversity of stakeholders with high degrees of Relative to other building projects, hotels also require
power and interest. According to Mosquera [8], a director at more complicated systems (electro-mechanical, IT), services,
the Ampere Hospitality Group, construction of a typical five- and processes. In turn, the design and execution of such
star hotel involves more than 20 experts and consultants, systems requires numerous activities with a high level of
including façade and vertical transportation consultants, wind interactivity. Such end-to-end overlapping processes require
tunnel specialists (for towers with more than 30 floors), effective coordination and can involve complex and strategic
interior design consultants, and kitchen lighting and acoustic decision-making.
specialists, with the number and variety of specialists
growing with the hotel classification [8]. The resulting 2.2.2. Complexities Associated with Category 2
number of different stakeholders can create long Commercial/office buildings can be described as
communication channels characterized by slow responses, moderate-complexity projects. The standard practice is to
disputes, and conflicts. Beyond their common amenities, build the core and shell with open floor plans and main
hotels are often unique buildings that can distinguish services only, leaving the fit-out work to be carried out by the
themselves through customized design features that provide, tenant later on. As a result, the complexity of stakeholder
for example, attractive retail areas, unique technological diversity and interrelated systems is reduced relative to hotel
features, or iconic building concepts. As a result, and because projects. However, this project scope allows for a high range
hotel projects are fully furnished, the associated costs are of customization, particularly in the large, high-cost projects
very high. Hotels cost four times more per square meter than associated with Category 2, Group (A) structures.
office developments and require triple the construction time
[7]. An interview with a lead project manager revealed that, 2.2.3. Complexities Associated with Category 3
"a five-star hotel has approximately 6,000 to 8,000 activities For a number of reasons, projects associated with places of
executed on-site, [as opposed to] 3,000 to 4,000 activities in worship have a lower complexity than the other project types
three-star hotels and about 1,000 activities for a typical addressed in this study. In Qatar, the responsible
133 Aldana Abdulla Alsulaiti and Laoucine Kerbache: Analysis of Critical Delay Factors in Construction
Projects with a Focus on Qatar

governmental authority has issued regulations and guidelines selected.

for the construction of worship buildings. These guidelines
define design restrictions and specifications, thereby adding 3.2. Phase Two – Data Collection
smoothness and clarity to the project definition and reducing Primary data were gathered using qualitative methods. As
the degree of possible customization and extreme innovation the scope was limited to case studies, specific data were
to create a standard category of construction project. collected from project records prior to conducting interviews
Although the government has developed building design with project managers. The data were then discussed in-depth
prototypes to facilitate the design and construction processes over the course of 20 one-on-one interviews with
and maintain improved control over them, there are cases in experienced management executives, project managers,
which the prototypes do not suit the plot conditions and a discipline engineers, and contract engineers to determine
consultant is secured to execute the design within the defined delay factors in the field.
requirements. Furthermore, worship projects differ slightly Project delay percentages were calculated based on the
from other building projects as they are financed by the project duration and planned-versus-actual finishing dates.
government or by private donors (rather than owners). A The overall delay percentage statistics were then broken
donor might donate a piece of land for the government to down into percentages attributed to specific causes to
build on or fund the construction of a building on categorize the delay factors for a more precise analysis. After
government land. In all cases, worship buildings are evaluating the factors applicable to each project, the delays
supervised and maintained by the government, and donors were ranked from highest (most critical) to lowest (least
are obliged to sign an agreement to adhere to approved critical) based on the respective assigned percentages to
designs and agreed-upon specifications without changes or reflect the magnitude of factor impact on project
interruptions during construction, which enables full performance. The sample sizes by category are listed Table 2.
supervision by the authorities. As a result of these predefined
regulations, design limitations, and controls on donor-based Table 2. Sample size by building category.
variations, worship buildings have a higher level of
Project category Number of projects
standardization. Furthermore, as noted by a lead project
Category 1: Four- to Five-Star Hotels 5
manager, the construction of worship projects involves
Category 2: Commercial Offices (Group A) 5
approximately 1,500 on-site activities, which is a relatively
Category 2: Commercial Offices (Group B) 5
small number compared to the other categories. Nevertheless,
Category 3: Worship buildings 10
efficient planning, implementation, control, and monitoring
from start to finish are all crucial in sustaining good project
performance. 4. Results and Analysis
The severities of the impact of the identified delay factors
3. Methodology on the project schedules for each identified category are
This study conducted an empirical analysis focusing on the listed in Table 3. Each delay factor is discussed in detail in
time-control difficulties that can cause delays in the the following sections.
identified Qatari construction project categories with 4.1. Change in the Scope of the Construction Project
different complexity levels. To achieve the study objectives,
a qualitative approach using case studies and in-depth In Category 1, 74.32% of the total delay was caused by
interviews was used to obtain focused and extensive data to changes in the scope of the construction project. Such
inform appropriate evaluation results and establishing changes are issued in response to newly developing
conclusions. The categories consist of four- and five-star circumstances and are expected during the course of a
hotels, core and shell office or commercial buildings with construction process. Relative to other building projects,
two different complexity levels, and worship buildings. hotel construction projects involve more complex
development and management for a number of reasons,
3.1. Phase One – Developing a Complexity Categorization including the fact that hotels tend to have a diversity of
Framework stakeholders with high levels of power and interest, such as
Using a qualitative approach, secondary data were the owner, hotel operator, project consultants, contractors,
collected from books, internet articles, journals, and other tourism authority, statutory authorities, and financing agency
published work. Semi-structured interviews with experts (bank). Later involvement of dominant and powerful
were conducted to understand industry challenges and to stakeholders can increase the risk of changes in scope. Each
obtain summaries of project complexity to appropriately hotel operator will have their own criteria and requirements
define the scope of the research. The results of the literature that govern project design and services, and the level of
review and field expert interviews guided the selection of requirements will increase with the star rating of the facility.
characteristics used to develop a complexity categorization This investigation revealed that the primary causes of
framework, as detailed in Section 2.2, from which suitable changes in scope included appointing an operator after
categories were selected to achieve the study objective were designing the building, obtaining the approval of government
 International Journal of Business and Economics Research 2020; 9(3): 130-139 134

authorities, and changing the scope of the project from a long-lead items had to be re-procured because cheaper items
regular residential building to a five-star hotel during that did not match the approved specifications were procured
construction. Specifically, change-induced delays required unethically by a sub-consultant in an attempt to reduce costs.
document coordination, revisions, and approvals and resulted
in repeated work cycles to implement changes, lengthened 4.3. Final Inspection/Approval by Authorities
communication channels, and disputes regarding whether As the third most critical delay factor for Category 1,
raised issues constituted legitimate changes in contract scope delays relating to final inspection and approval by the
and how to evaluate the costs of those changes. relevant authorities contributed to approximately 6.62% of
Changes in scope represented one of the three most critical the total delay. Government authorities are involved in the
delay factors for both Categories 1 and 2 (B), constituting project management process until the commissioning and
12.51% of the total delay in the latter category. This finding handover of the project. In the final stage of a project, these
emphasizes the severe impact of changes in scope on both authorities inspect the executed work to ensure compliance
small and large projects, as the disruption of an originally with previously approved designs and to ensure that the
agreed upon scope significantly impacts the schedule. authorized standards and regulations have been followed. As
4.2. Subcontractors this is one of the last stages of a project, delay in
modification approval can significantly impact the project
The second most critical delay factor for Category 1 was schedule and finish date. A strong relation was observed in
related to subcontractors and accounted for 11.17% of the this study between changes in project scope and the official
total delay. This finding reflects the fact that, owing to their approval process. Modifications arising from changes in
nature and size, hotel projects require several specialists. As scope must be approved relevant the authorities and, in many
a result, most of the construction work is performed by cases, the sequential approval of several authorities is
subcontractors, which can significantly affect progress and required. For projects put on hold for a period of time, it was
success. High levels of risk are introduced as a result of observed that the number of modifications at the handing-
deploying inexperienced sub-contractors, who can cause over stage was elevated owing to updates in official
delays through poor performance, reworked tasks, poor requirements and standards.
financial capacity, lack of resources, and delays in material Interestingly, delays arising from final inspection/approval
procurement. Accordingly, a higher degree of risk is by authorities were found to be the second most critical delay
associated with inadequate main and subcontractors, as the factor for Category 2 (B), accounting for 25.37% of the total
main contractor is obliged to efficiently manage all involved delay in this category. The presence of this factor in two
sub-contractors to coordinate and execute the planned scope. categories with different complexity levels (higher and
An analysis of subcontractor-associated delays in this study lower) reflects the importance of managing items related to
revealed that delays emerged from contractual issues between influential stakeholders and emphasizes the impact of official
main and subcontractors, delays in the procurement of delays to a project if required knowledge and industry
material by the sub-contractors, and shortages of laborers. practices are not considered and applied accordingly.
However, in many cases in which the main contractor was a
big contracting company, the sub-contractor could be 4.4. Lack of Experience and Low-skilled Contractors
supported through supplements to the labor force to cover The commercial/office buildings of Category 2 (A) are
shortages and accelerate execution. often perceived as standard projects with relatively low
Delays owing to subcontractors accounted for 34.63% of complexity. This description might be more applicable to
the total delay for Category 2 (A) projects. The higher costs Category 2 (B) projects as such an assessment amounts to an
of these projects corresponded to an enhanced work scope underestimation of the expertise required to deliver a project,
and a variety of involved parties and specialties. In one case, resulting in mismatches between the skills required to
subcontractor performance played a major role in delay perform tasks and the planned scope. Nineteen percent of the
project because a critical issue led to a series of cascading total delays for Category 2 (A) were caused by a lack of
consequences. During the tender process, the owner asked contractor experience and low skill levels. Commercial/office
technically qualified bidders to submit discounted offers, the buildings should more accurately described as moderate-
lowest of which was selected. The offer, however, was complexity projects for which the normal practice is to build
unrealistic and far below the estimated project budget drawn the core and shell with open floor plans and provide only
by the consultant. This added major risks and challenges to main services while the fit-out work is carried out by the
the execution of the project. The main contractor attempted tenant later on. As a result, the complexity of stakeholder
to reduce the cost in ways that negatively affected the project diversity and interrelated systems is less than that of hotel
by creating a joint venture with another contractor to share projects. However, the project scope allows for a wider range
risks, costs, and responsibilities. However, the contract was of projects and a high degree of customization, particularly in
inherently flawed owing to fatal issues in the project’s the large, high-cost projects that characterize Category 2 (A).
organizational structure and management hierarchy, as the Lack of experience and skills can also create problems in
division of the scope and coordination of responsibility terms of quality, cost, and time. Although it is not necessary
within the joint venture was inadequate. In addition, some
135 Aldana Abdulla Alsulaiti and Laoucine Kerbache: Analysis of Critical Delay Factors in Construction
Projects with a Focus on Qatar

for the contracting company to have previously executed a have sufficient knowledge of the terms and conditions and
project of similar scale and category, it is crucial to evaluate expects that disputes can be handled in a casual manner.
the company’s competency, capability, and capacity to This type of delay was found to be the top delay factor in
execute the intended project. Category 3 projects. As noted above, worship projects in
Qatar are financed by either the government or private
4.5. Delayed Material Delivery and Lack of Sufficient donors. The latter are associated a higher risk of delay
Material because governmental control over payments is reduced
Issues related to delays in material supply and shortages relative to their own funding levels. The impact of this factor
of available materials were found to occur in all of the was found to account for 38.46% of the total delay in this
studied categories, although for different reasons and with category for a number of reasons. For example, if a donor
varying impacts on the project schedules. Material delay becomes financially incapable of supplying funding, the
was the third most critical factor for Category 2 (A) and authorities will require time to validate their financial
accounted for 14.98% of the total delay in this group. It was condition and support their claim to financing of the
found that poor planning and procurement management by remaining work through the government. Such governmental
contractors and changes in material specifications during intervention lengthens the process because certain procedures
projects played a dominant role in project delays. Materials must be followed and, in the meantime, on-site work halts
and —particularly long-lead items—must be planned with the last payment made.
effectively before beginning construction, and it is vital to 4.7. Inadequate Planning
have equally qualified alternative suppliers and not depend
on a single supplier. Changes in material specifications, Inadequate planning by contractors was found to be one of
particularly for long-lead items in late project stages, can the most critical delay factors for Category 3, corresponding
significantly disturb the duration of procurement and to 19.55% of the total delay in this category. In many cases,
delivery activities. worship projects are awarded directly to contractors by the
government authority responsible for doing so based on
4.6. Owners’ Financial Payments direct donor selection or according to awarding to the lowest
Delays in owners’ payments were found to be a leading qualified bidder, which encourages bidders to submit under-
category of delay, constituting 30.80% of the total delay for cost proposals. Because of the low estimated project cost
Category 2 (B). Construction projects commonly involve a ceiling in this category, most bidding contractors can be
considerable capital outlay, making the distribution of cash classified as low- to medium-class contractors, and some do
flows through efficiently timed payments critical to the not have adequate skills or management capabilities to
progress and success of a project. Category 2 (B) projects successfully execute projects within the planned period. As a
consist of low-rise commercial/office buildings (mixed-use) result, planned activity schedules cannot be met with the
with a standard level of finishes and are therefore of a lower estimated activity resources (manpower, equipment, and
level of complexity than Category 2 (A) projects. The material) required to execute the work. Indeed, inadequate
collected data indicated that delays arising from late resource estimation for the volume of work was a common
payments occurred more often in medium and small and emphasized occurrence in the interviews conducted for
projects. Generally, as a result of their relatively low this study.
contract prices, such projects are fully or partially financed 4.8. Unnecessary Donor Interference
by owners and not by a financing agency. This factor has a
greater degree of influence on small building projects Unnecessary interference was observed to have a
because they are commonly awarded to small contractors significant impact on Category 3 projects, accounting for
who depend on cash flows to work, meaning that delayed 19.29% of the total delay in this category. Donor interference
payments represent a financial burden. Moreover, such can significantly disturb project progress in many ways. As
projects are commonly run by the owners themselves or by discussed earlier, any conflict or clash with predefined
a technically unqualified representative; this can cause requirements can hinder progress because worship projects in
unnecessary clashes between the contracting parties, which Qatar are executed under governmental procedures and
is usually reflected in payment delays. Other common requirements. In one case, the donor refused to comply with
causes of delays include the failure to tie projects to a “must one of the authority’s regulations at the handover stage which
achieve” deadline and owners who are not in a rush or delayed the completion of the project. Furthermore, the donor
under an obligation to assign a fixed delivery date for an held up the contractor’s payments while this suspension was
operator or tenant. Yet another common cause of delays is in place. This case represents an example of payment delay
disagreement regarding contractual factors between owners caused by disagreement and project delay caused by the need
and contractors who have low and average levels of to negotiate with the authorities to obtain an exception to
awareness, respectively, of the related payment terms, regulations.
particularly when the contractual team does not adhere to or
 International Journal of Business and Economics Research 2020; 9(3): 130-139 136

Table 3. Comparison of impacts of delay factors on time schedules within respective categories.

Category Category 2 (%) Category 2 (%) Category 3

Delay Factor
1 (%) Group A Group B (%)
Variations in the scope of the construction project 74.32 7.05 12.51
Modifications required by government authorities to obtain building permits 3.60 14.67
Sub-contractors 11.17 34.63 8.93
Lack of experience and low-skilled contractors 0.96 19.12 4.33
Insufficient execution of plan by contractor 1.59 6.97
Lack of labor force 0.96
Poor productivity of hired labor 0.96
Inefficient planning by contractor 0.64 19.55
Final inspection/approval by authorities 6.62 5.19 25.37
Mistakes in design by consultant 0.67 1.16 0.00
Late material delivery or lack of sufficient material 0.49 14.98 12.41 7.68
Difficulties in obtaining different parties’ approval 0.97
Owners’ financial payments 30.80 38.46
Improper site conditions / obstacles 0.24 9.97 3.72
Unnecessary interference by the owner/donator in various project areas 19.29

Note: Percentages reflect the severity of the delay factor on the project schedule.

5. Discussion of Critical Factors and Comparison with Projects in Other Countries

Some delay factors were found to recur across categories, particularly among projects with similar complexity levels and
characteristics, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Comparison of critical delay factors across studied categories.

Category 2
Category 1 Category 3
Group A: Group B:
1. Changes in the scope of the
1. Subcontractors 1. Owners’ financial payments 1. Owners’ financial payments
construction project
2. Lack of experience and low skill 2. Final inspection/approval by
2. Subcontractors 2. Inefficient planning by the contractor
level of contractor authorities
3. Final inspection/ approval by 3. Delayed material delivery and lack 3. Changes in the scope of the 3. Unnecessary interference of the owner
authorities of availability of sufficient material construction project in the different areas of the project

A comparison of the performance of the respective removed revealed that delays increased with complexity, as
categories in terms of delay with outlying/unusual cases shown in Figure 1.

Note: Project delay percentages were calculated using project duration and planned-versus-actual finishing dates.
Figure 1. Comparison of delay percentages across categories in Qatar.
137 Aldana Abdulla Alsulaiti and Laoucine Kerbache: Analysis of Critical Delay Factors in Construction
Projects with a Focus on Qatar

For all project categories, changes in scope were found to countries such as the United States.
have a significant effect on schedule delay as a result of the Delay arising from the owner’s financial payments was
need for repeated evaluation, approval, and implementation. found to be the leading factor in low- to medium-size
The effects changes in scope were exacerbated when the projects with relatively low complexity levels, i.e.,
project’s critical path was impacted. It was further shown that Categories 2 (B) and 3. Previous studies have revealed that
change-based delays in projects with higher complexity in the issue of late payments is present both in developing
terms of stakeholder diversity resulted from inadequate countries such as Ghana and in developed countries such as
stakeholder management, while change-based delays in Australia and the United Kingdom [14]. In many cases, the
lower-complexity projects resulted from improper scope contractor’s awareness level and adherence to contractual
definition. A review of projects in developing countries by guidelines present a common problem in which the
Islam and Trigunarsyah [9] found that, for all project contractor’s technical and contractual team do not adhere to
classification types, changes in scope and financial issues or have sufficient knowledge of contract terms and
during construction were the most frequent and critical conditions and expect disputes to be handled in a casual
causes of delay. Two studies on large building construction manner, resulting in a negative impact on payments [15].
projects in Saudi Arabia by Assaf et al. in 1995 and 2006 [10, When investigating the different causes behind this delay, the
11] also noted changes in scope as a primary critical delay general conditions of contracts were often found to be silent
factor in large construction projects with respect to payments and tended to favor owners. For
Delays arising from subcontractor issues were found to be example, the contractor often had no right to stop or slow
a dominant factor in large projects. Owing to the high work owing to delayed payment and was not allowed to
number of subcontractors involved in executing the larger apply interest to delayed payment, stipulations that added
and more varied scope of work in such projects, the risks of burdens upon the contractor’s financial situation. Although
delay by subcontractors are higher. In n the cases examined such conditions were not explicitly stated in the contracts,
in this study, a high project cost was found to be an they were covered under the terms of payment article, under
indication of larger project scope. A 2012 study by which employers were generally not liable for interest on
Papadopoulou and Park [12] on the causes of cost overruns in delayed payments while liquidated damages articles could be
a large transport infrastructure project in Asia revealed that, applied in the case of contractor delays.
in addition to the significance of project size, awarding
contracts to the lowest bidder, site conditions, and 6. Recommendations
incompetent subcontractors were the top three causes of cost
overruns. The results of this study also indicated a moderate This study found significant delay factors common to all
correlation between cost overrun and project size, with the building categories, including delays owing to changes in scope
result that large building projects were frequently delayed by and delays owing to inspection/approval by authorities. This
subcontractors. Thus, understanding the complexity section presents recommendations related to these two factors,
dimensions of large projects is essential to selecting the which occurred in high and low-complexity projects alike.
appropriate project organizational form and expertise.
Delay associated with official approval was found to be a 6.1. Factor 1: Delays Owing to Owners’ Changes in Scope
critical factor in all project categories, particularly in later Although changes in project scope cannot be avoided
stages. To ensure compliance with local standards, entirely, their impacts can be mitigated or minimized using
regulations, and policies, official involvement continues until management practices. In this study, two project management
the commissioning and handover of a project, resulting in a knowledge areas were found to be crucial for managing
delay factor that was repeated among both high- and low- changes in scope: project stakeholder management and
complexity projects for a number of reasons. The results of project scope management.
study indicated that projects in all categories experienced Recommendation 1: Minimize variations through proper
significant changes in scope, making the need for official management of project stakeholders.
approval a sub-cause of delay. Furthermore, inexperienced The Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK
contractors were found to be subject to official delays as a Guide) identifies a set of processes for managing project
result of poor planning and lack of the knowledge needed to stakeholders. Although these processes are discrete, they
ensure compliance with all standards, regulations, and interact and overlap throughout the course of a project.
requirements prior to and during inspection. A brief study of Furthermore, agility in decision-making minimizes the
the construction industry in the U.S. state of Florida by impact of delays on project schedules for situations requiring
Ahmed et al. [13] found that code-related delay, including the active engagement of stakeholders. For example, in some
building permit approvals, inspections, and changes in laws Category 1 projects, rather than going through long
and regulations by the government, was the most critical communication chains and layers of, the owner paid the hotel
category of delay. The study recommended streamlining the operator’s representative to be present with the local
approval process as much as possible [13] and indicated that consultant’s team in order to directly discuss and implement
code-related delay is a critical problem even in developed requirements and changes. However, such project teams must
 International Journal of Business and Economics Research 2020; 9(3): 130-139 138

still analyze the impact of costs and extra fees as well as the contractor can be asked to provide a look-ahead
cost of delays. schedule. For example, if it is possible to complete the
Recommendation 2: Reduce gaps through appropriate work required for official inspection within two weeks,
definition of the project scope.The Project Scope the supervision consultant should raise an IR two weeks
Management section of the PMBOK Guide defines six in advance. This will take less time than raising an IR
processes that can be used as guides for managing project after completing the work. However, expert judgment is
scope. To minimize the chances of required changes, the required to adequately estimate the required time, and
project team must define the scope by collating and the work should still be efficiently managed to allow for
appropriately analyzing requirements according to the finishing as planned;
client’s interests. It is critical to include and manage the 5. As advised by the project managers interviewed for this
conflicting needs and expectations of project stakeholders study, plan to complete work that is to be inspected by
when collating their requirements. The documented authorities in advance. This will allow sufficient time to
requirements can then form the basis for defining and incorporate the authorities’ comments and receive
developing the project scope, including boundaries and approvals in time for the handover.
exclusions, to maintain proper control of the project.
Recommendation 3: Raise the client’s awareness of the 7. Conclusions and Further Research
impact of changes in scope. Before changes can be
implemented, the client must be made aware of their 7.1. Conclusions
consequences through an evaluation of the impact on project
cost, schedule, and other related performance aspects. All construction projects pose risks of varying natures and
Recommendation 4: Manage interfaces properly. degrees of complexity, with delay posing a significant risk in
Later project changes have the advantage of building on the industry. The results of this study emphasize the
previous gaps and design clashes. As a very effective importance of identifying the delay factors in the early stages
strategy, contractors can be included in the project process to properly manage construction projects and ensure timely
prior to officially issuing a change by, for example, issuing performance. In this study, common delay factors and their
an advanced copy of the change package for contractor impacts on specific project categories were studied to link
information and review. The contractor’s observations can these factors to different project characteristics and establish
then be captured as needed to resolve any design issues that a broader conclusion that can be applied to projects in
might arise later. This strategy also allows the contractor to general. To better understand the underlying characteristics
start contacting their vendors to manage the pricing process of project delay, the focus of this study was on project
in advance, thereby reducing the change evaluation duration. complexity level. In order to link the delay factors associated
Recommendation 5: Split work packages to reduce the with different levels of complexity, a framework was
impact of delays in one package on other activities. established to compare performance in four building
Instead of sequentially conducting work packages, it is construction project complexity categories. For each
recommended that some activities be performed in parallel to category, the top three critical factors were identified by
reduce the overall completion time. comparing the weight of each delay factor relative to the
overall delay in that category. The identified categories,
6.2. Factor 2: Delays Owing to Final Inspection/Approval especially those with similar complexity levels, were found
by Authorities to have common factors affecting their schedule
performance. For instance, the schedules of Category 1 and 2
Recommendation 6: Formulate a comprehensive plan by (A) projects were significantly affected by subcontractor
considering authorities’ requirements, evolving changes, and issues arising from complexities in terms of the associated
time lags.To mitigate delays in the final inspection/approval stakeholder diversity, project size, and costs. Alternatively,
by authorities, the project team must: some factors were repeated across relatively high- and low-
1. Ensure compliance with all government standards, complexity levels, including changes in the scope of the
regulations, and requirements before and during the project and delay owing to final inspection/approval by
inspection; authorities, which were important in both Categories 1 and 2
2. Monitor changes and updates in all specifications and (B). These findings indicate that the impact of some factors,
regulations, particularly to avoid changes in projects such as changes in scope, is significant in all building
that have been on hold for a long time or that have long categories due to their extensive departure from the
execution periods; associated project plans. The recurrence of delays associated
3. Given the uncertainty in the scheduling of inspection with final inspection/approval by authorities highlights two
visits by authorities, dedicate adequate time for important findings, namely, the critical importance of delays
inspection and approval activities in planning the in the final stage (as the final target finish date is approached)
project schedule and assign experienced personnel to and the significant impact of powerful stakeholders on
follow up on these activities; project performance.
4. Plan the work execution in terms of the time needed to Correlations of performance by category according to delays,
raise an Inspection Request (IR). For example, the
139 Aldana Abdulla Alsulaiti and Laoucine Kerbache: Analysis of Critical Delay Factors in Construction
Projects with a Focus on Qatar

with exceptional outlier cases excluded, revealed that delays [3] Merry, U. (1995). “Coping with uncertainty – Insights from
tended to increase with complexity. However, for both large- the new sciences of chaos, self-organization and complexity.”
Westport: Praeger Publications.
and small-scale projects, risk identification of potential causes
of delay found to be important throughout the construction [4] Mills, A. (2001). A systematic approach to risk management
process to enable the proactive adoption of necessary for construction. Struct. Surv., 19: 254–252.
mitigation measures. In the data collection process undertaken [5] Baccarini, D. (1996). The concept of project complexity – A
as a part of this study, many companies were found to be review. Int. J. Constr. Manag., 14 (4): 201–204.
lacking in appropriate risk management practices and records
of lessons learned. To avoid delays, proper management and [6] Buys, F. (2015). “Five causes of project delay and cost
overrun, and their mitigation measures.”
transfer of knowledge should be embedded into company https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/five-causes-project-delay-
culture and tools should be tailored to project-specific cost-overrun-mitigation-measures-buys. Accessed May 19,
characteristics such as size, complexity, and importance. 2018.

7.2. Limitations [7] Gidado, K. (1996). Project complexity: The focal point of
construction production planning. Constr. Manag. Econ., 14
To achieve the stated objectives, the scope of this study (3): 213–225. doi: 10.1080/014461996373476
was limited to three categories of building projects with four [8] Mosquera, L. (2015). Understanding the hotel development
complexity levels. In future investigations of the nature and process. Retrieved from
impact of various types of complexity on the construction https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/understanding-hotel-
industry, a wider scope of research should be applied to development-process-lucienne-mosquera-mih
include additional types of projects with more granularity. In [9] Islam, M. S. and B. Trigunarsyah (2017). Construction delays
addition, the sample evaluated in this study was limited to in developing countries: A review. J. Constr. Eng. M. ASCE.,
twenty-five projects, with data collected from three unique 7 (1): 1–12. doi: 10.6106/jcepm.2017.3.30.001
providers: a consultancy/supervision company, a contracting
[10] Assaf, S. A. and S. Al-Hejji (2006). Causes of delay in large
company, and the government authority. In future research, construction projects. Int. J. Constr. Proj. Manag., 24 (4): 349–
this data set should be expanded by studying a larger sample 357.
of projects undertaken by different companies in Qatar and
elsewhere to generalize the findings. This will also aid in [11] Assaf, S. A., M. Al-Khalil, and M. Al-Hazmi (1995). Causes
of delay in large building construction projects. J. Manag.
further investigation of the differences observed in this study Eng., 11: 45–50.
and help to confirm the presented hypotheses.
[12] Papadopoulou, T. C. and Y. I. Park (2012). Causes of cost
7.3. Further Research overruns in transport infrastructure projects in Asia: Their
significance and relationship with project size. Built Environ.
While this study focused on delay factors, further research Proj. Asset Manag., 2: 195–216. doi:
should address the factors underlying cost overruns and their 10.1108/20441241211280873
correlations with delay and complexity level to formulate [13] Ahmed, S. M., S. Azhar, P. Kappagantula and D. Gollapudi
appropriate mitigation measures. Alternatively, the top delay (2003). “Delays in construction: A brief study of the Florida
factors for the identified complexity levels in Qatari projects construction industry.” In ASC Proc. of the 39th Annual Conf.,
could be compared with those from other developed and 257–266. Clemson, South Carolina: Clemson University.
developing countries. Additional areas for future research [14] Ansah, S. K. (2011). Causes and effects of delayed payments
include studying and measuring the effectiveness of specific by clients on construction projects in Ghana. J. Constr. Proj.
mitigation measures on project performance. Manag. and Innov., 1 (1): 27–45.

[15] Okeyo, M. P., C. M. Rambo and P. A. Odundo. (2015). Effects

of delayed payment of contractors on the completion of
References infrastructural projects: A case of Sondu-Miriu Hydropower
Project, Kisumu County, Kenya.” Chinese Bus. Rev., 14 (7):
[1] Lissack, M., P. Cilliers and K. A. Richardson (2001). 325–336.
Complexity science: A “gray” science for the “stuff in
between.” Emergence, 3 (2): 6–18. doi:
10.1207/s15327000em0302_02

[2] Wood, H. and K. Gidado (2008). Project complexity in

construction. COBRA 2008, 1–13.