Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 665–674

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Delays in construction projects: The case of Jordan

a,*
G. Sweis , R. Sweis b, A. Abu Hammad c, A. Shboul d

a
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Jordan, Jordan
b
Department of Business Administration, Amman – Ahlyah University, Jordan
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Applied Science University, Jordan
d
Department of Architecture Engineering, University of Jordan, Jordan

Received 29 April 2007; received in revised form 22 August 2007; accepted 25 September 2007

Abstract

The construction industry is a major player in the economy, generating both, employment and wealth. However many projects expe-
rience extensive delays and thereby exceed initial time and cost estimates. A host of causes of construction delays in residential projects
were identified and classified according to Drewin’s Open Conversion System. The most common causes were evaluated by using both,
the data collected in a survey conducted to residential projects consultant engineers, contractors, and owners, and interviews with senior
professionals in the field. Most correspondents agreed that, financial difficulties faced by the contractor and too many change orders by
the owner are the leading causes of construction delay. Severe weather conditions and changes in government regulations and laws
ranked among the least important causes.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Construction delays; Residential construction projects; Jordanian construction industry

1. Introduction on. In addition, delays are often interconnected, making

Stumpf [1] defined delay as an act or event that extends
the time required to perform the tasks under a contract. It
usually shows up as additional days of work or as a delayed
start of an activity. He showed, in his article, that delay
does matter, and that different methods for analyzing sche-
dule delay lead to different results for the owner and
contractor.
Construction delays became an integral part of the pro-
ject’s construction life. Even with today’s advanced tech-
nology, and management understanding of project
management techniques, construction projects continue
to suffer delays and project completion dates still get
pushed back [1].
There are many reasons why delays occur. They may be
due to strikes, rework, poor organization, material short-
age, equipment failure, change orders, act of God and so
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +962 6 535 5000; fax: +962 6 535 5580.
E-mail address: gsweis@ju.edu.jo (G. Sweis).
the situation even more complex [2].
Recent events in the Middle East region coupled with
restructuring of economies, emergence of the World Trade
Organization and the rising price of oil are expected to
yield an unprecedented growth in construction activities,
especially in the tourism and the residential sectors. Conse-
quently, a huge number of large-scale projects are currently
under construction or in the planning and contract-award-
ing phase. Recently, the Jordanian construction industry
has been undergoing a boom. One major question of con-
cern however arises: what are the major causes of delays in
the Jordanian construction industry and their relative
importance?
2. Problem statement and study objectives
Delays in construction projects are common in the Jor-
danian construction industry. Construction delays are
often responsible for turning profitable projects into loos-
ing ventures. These delays can be avoided or reduced

0263-7863/$30.00 Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.09.009
666 G. Sweis et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 665–674

provided the major causes of such delays can be identified
and dealt with in a timely fashion. Therefore the study
objectives are (a) to identify the major causes of delay in
the Jordanian residential construction sector; and (b) to
asses the relative importance of these causes from the point
of view of residential projects consultant engineers, con-
tractor, and owners.
3. Literature review
Delays happen in most construction projects, whether
simple or complex. Construction delay could be defined
as the time overrun either beyond the contract date or
beyond the date that the parties agreed upon for delivery
of a project [11].
Odeh and Battaineh [8], Kaming et al. [13] and
Alaghbari et al. [14] stressed the importance of early
identification of construction delays and suggested major
delay-reducing remedies.
Analyses of delays are characterized as complex and dif-
ficult due to the large number of activities that have to be
dealt with in any construction project [25]. Researchers
have studied the numerous causes of delay in construction
projects; Baldwin et al. [16], Arditi et al.[17], Okpala and
Aniekwu [18], Dlakwa and Culpin [19], Mansfield et al.
[20], Semple et al. [21], Ogunlana et al. [22], Lo et al.
[23], Chan and Kumaraswamy [24], and Aibinu and Odey-
inka [9] cited many significant causes of delays as: inclem-
ent weather, shortages of resources, financial difficulties
faced by public agencies and contractors, poor contract
management, shortages of materials, and inadequate
resources. Their overall ranking of delay causes indicated
areas of construction industry practices that require
improvement. However, they still differed in their percep-
tions as to what should be emphasized most among the dif-
ferent construction delay causes.
Few studies have been conducted in Jordan as well as
the Middle East region on the subject of construction
delays. Such studies are found in different countries like
Saudi Arabia [5,11,3], Lebanon [4], and Kuwait [6]. Table
1 shows a summary of previous studies on construction
delays in the Middle East.
There is no consensus in the literature on the identifica-
tion of factors which affect construction times of buildings.
One reason for this is that researchers have largely viewed
the subject from diverse perspectives. Even most recent
research in construction delay is characterized by diversi-
fied views on what should constitute a major delay cause
in construction projects [27–34]. This study seeks to build
on prior research by ranking each individual cause of con-

Table 1
Summary of previous studies of the causes of delay in construction projects (middle east region)
Country Researchers Major causes of delay
Saudi Arabia Assaf et al. [3]  Slow preparation and approval of shop drawings
 Delays in payments to contractors
 Changes in design/design error
 Shortages of labor supply
 Poor workmanship
Lebanon Mezher et al. [4]  Owner had more concerns with regard to financial issues
 Contractors regarded contractual relationships the most important
 Consultants considered project management issues to be the most
important causes of delay
Saudi Arabia Al-Khal and Al-Ghafly [5]  Cash flow problems/financial difficulties
 Difficulties in obtaining permits
 ‘‘Lowest bid wins’’ system
Jordan Al-Moumani [7]  Poor design
 Changes in orders/design
 Weather
 Unforeseen site conditions
 Late deliveries
Kuwait Koushki et al. [6]  Changing orders
 Owners’ financial constraints
 Owners’ lack of experience in the construction business
United Arab Emirates (UAE) Faridi and El-Sayegh [15]  Slow preparation and approval of drawings
 Inadequate early planning of the project
 Slowness of owner’s decision making
 Shortage of manpower
 Poor site management and supervision
 Low productivity of manpower
Saudi Arabia Assaf and Al-Hejji [13]  Change in orders by the owner during construction
 Delay in progress payment
 Ineffective planning and scheduling
 Shortage of labor
 Difficulties in financing on the part of the contractor
 G. Sweis et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 665–674
Feed Back
Input Factors
Labor
Capital
Input
Mechanism
Energy
Material
Disturbance
Equipment
Disturbance
Fig. 1. Drewin’s open conversion system.
struction delay from the viewpoints of the consultant engi-
neer, the residential contractor, and the owner in the con-
text of Drewin’s Open Conversion System.
4. Research design and survey methodology
The design of the questionnaire has been based on the
Open Conversion System proposed by Drewin [10].
According to Drewin, the conversion process associated
with construction is complex, influenced by technology
and by many externalities such as government regulations,
weather, unions, economic conditions, etc., and by various
internal environment components (Fig. 1). This research,
hence synthesizes potential delay causes identified in previ-
ous research [5] and the factors presented in the Drewin’s
Open Conversion System to arrive at a clearly structured
questionnaire. Finally, 40 potential delay causes were sum-
marized into three major categories:
Input Factors (IF)
Labor (L)
Materials (M)
Equipment (E)
Internal Environment (IE)
Contractor
Owner
Consultant
Exogenous Factors (EF)
Weather
Government Regulations
Due to the dearth of real data relating to delays in res-
idential construction, the researchers developed a survey
questionnaire to assess the perceptions of the consultants,
contractors, and owners of the relative importance of con-
667
Feed Back
Internal Environment, Output Factors
Organizational Structure,
Supervision, Management, Span
of Control, Work Rules, etc.
Rework
Conversion Output Products
Technology Mechanism
and
Projects
Disturbance
Exogeneous Factors such as:
Weather, Economic Conditions, Disturbance
Unions, Government Regulations,
Public, etc.
struction delay causes and measure differences in collective
perspectives and any possible popular misconceptions or
prejudices.
Next, the questionnaire was distributed to a random
sample of consultants, contractors,1 and owners, in the
field of residential building projects in Jordan. Responses
to the questionnaire were then collected and analyzed.
The analysis of the questionnaire included ranking of
the different responses according to their frequency for
consultants, contractors, and owners (Appendix A). Fur-
thermore, a one-way ANOVA was carried out among the
means of responses of the three groups for each individual
delay cause to measure for any significant differences
among the respondents’ perceptions. Discussion of the
results was based on personal interviews that were con-
ducted to clarify responses. Interviewees were experts from
the Association of Construction Contractors and the Min-
istry of Housing and Public Works.
The scope of this research includes residential buildings
in Jordan. Sampling in this research was necessary because
it would be practically impossible to conduct a census to
rank delay causes by all elements of the population. The
population consists of all the consultants, contractors,
and owners in the Municipality of Amman who are actively
involved in residential buildings at the time the study was
conducted. The researchers chose to follow a simple ran-
dom sampling to assure that each element in the popula-
tion has an equal chance of being included in the sample.
This technique was deemed most appropriate given the rel-
atively large size of the population of consultants, contrac-
tors, and owners. The sample size was selected based on the
judgment of the researchers taking into consideration the
1
Contractors hired by the owner.
668 G. Sweis et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 665–674
Table 2
Frequency weighting scale in the research survey
Frequency Scale
Continual Frequent Occasional Rare
5 4 3 2
low variance or homogeneity of the different elements of
the population [26]. Finally a sample of 30 consultants,
50 contractors, and 30 owners were drawn that was pro-
portional to the relative population size [12].
Returned questionnaires consisted of 29 consultants, 36
contractors, and 26 clients. The respondents were asked to
express their perception, in terms of frequency of the delay
causes stated in the questionnaire. The questionnaire was
constructed based on the compiled list of causes. The
respondents were asked to give their opinion on the fre-
quency of each delay cause based on a five-point Likert
scale. The scale and the weight given to each response are
shown in Table 2.
5. Data analysis and results
The ranking of delay causes was determined by taking
the respective average score of the reported data for all
the respondents. The resulting averages and corresponding
ranks are presented in Appendix A.
All average values above 3 are considered ‘‘accepted
results’’, which basically indicated that the corresponding
delay result is a critical cause of delay to the group in ques-
tion. The values are ranked according to their averages in a
descending order according to the highest average in the
group response.
– The consultants’ responses classified the following three
delay causes as the most critical:
1. Poor planning and scheduling of the project by the
contractor
2. Financial difficulties faced by the contractor
3. Too many change orders from owner
– The contractor accepted the following as critical top
three delay causing factors:
1. Financial difficulties faced by the contractor
2. Too many change orders from owner
3. Shortage of manpower (skilled, semi-skilled,
unskilled labor)
– The owners viewed the following three delay causes as
most critical:
1. Poor planning and scheduling of the project by the
contractor
2. Financial difficulties faced by the contractor
3. Incompetent technical staff assigned to the project
6. Discussion of the results
The following discussion will emphasize on the most
important causes of delay by each of the three parties
and by the consensus justification as provided by the
experts during post-results interviews.
Never  Financial difficulties faced by the contractorFinancial
1 difficulties faced by the contractor were considered to
be the first and most frequent causes of delay in build-
ing projects in Jordan from the viewpoint of the con-
tractor and second most important according to both
the owner and the consultant.Most expert interviewees
claim that financial difficulties faced by the contractor
are a natural result of the competitive nature of the
industry. Furthermore, most Jordanian residential con-
tractors are independent, small in size, and often resorts
to underbidding rivals to win contracts. Also contrac-
tors in Jordan have little access to credit facilities.
The causes mentioned above provide for a certain rec-
ipe for cash flow problems later.It is obvious that both
the owner and the consultant support the contractor’s
claim with respect to the contractor’s financial difficul-
ties by ranking it second most important cause. More-
over, the contractor indirectly blames his/her financial
difficulties on the owner by ranking ‘‘delay in progress
payments by the owner’’ 5th most important cause of
delay.
 Too many change orders by the ownerHaving to deal
with too many change orders ranked as the second
most important delay cause from the viewpoint of the
contractor and third most important according to the
consultant. In fact, many experts agree that excessive
change orders have a tremendous effect on the financial
performance of a construction project. Change orders
can make or break a job. The average cost of change
orders on construction, as a percentage of the original
project budget, is 5–10%, according to many expert
interviewees.It is clear that the contractors support
their opinion regarding change orders as a major delay
cause by ranking ‘‘Interference in the construction
operation’’ as eighth highest among the delay causes.
Furthermore, the contractor partially blames the con-
sultant for the extensive change orders. This is mani-
fested by the relatively high rank (9th) given to the
delay cause ‘‘Ambiguities, mistakes, and inconsistencies
in specifications and drawings’’. On the other hand, we
notice that the views of both consultant and owner are
leaning toward blaming excessive change order partially
on the contractor’s shortage of technical professionals
in the contractor’s organization ranking it 4th and
5th respectively.
 Poor planning and scheduling of the project by the
contractorBoth the owner and the consultant ranked
this major delay cause as most important. The critical
importance of this cause can be seen clearly by notic-
ing the relatively high ranks given by both the consul-
tant and the owner for the following delay causes
relating both directly and indirectly to ‘‘poor planning
and scheduling of the project by the contractor’’
(Table 3).
 G. Sweis et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 665–674 669

Table 3 7. Difference in perception among the three groups

Highly ranked factors relevant to poor planning and scheduling
Delay cause Rank by
consultant
Shortage of technical professionals in the 4th
contractor’s organization
Insufficient coordination among the parties 5th
by the contractor
Ineffective quality control by the contractor 7th
 Shortage of manpower (skilled, semi-skilled, unskilled
labor)Manpower shortage was ranked third most impor-
tant delay cause from the viewpoint of the contractor.
Manpower shortage, skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled,
has been a serious delay cause for residential construc-
tion projects in Jordan. Recently, the Middle East region
has been experiencing a boom in construction due to
wars as well as the high prices of oil resulting in access
liquidity and thus a higher demand for investment
opportunities. The Jordanian residential construction
boom has been accompanied by shortages in foreign
manpower leading to higher wages and thus adding to
the financial burden on the contractor. This explains
the contractor’s reliance on cheap, unskilled labor. Addi-
tionally, this fact is very revealing in that it ties with the
high ranks given by the consultant and the owner to
‘‘Poor planning and scheduling of the project by the con-
tractor’’ and ‘‘Incompetent technical staff assigned to the
project’’ respectively.
Rank by A one-way analysis of variance was conducted among
owner the means of responses from the three groups to check
5th for any significant differences among the groups’ percep-
tions regarding the importance of the various delay causes.
10th
The mean values under the three groups, F statistics, and
9th the P values at which hypothesis of equality of mean values
across different groups could be rejected were calculated
(Appendix B). From the analysis, it was found that there
were statistically non-significant differences among the
respondent groups over the following causes:
1. Changes in Government regulations and laws.
2. Financial difficulties faced by the contractor.
3. Severe weather conditions on the job site.
The results of the ANOVA analysis (Figs. 2–4) show
that the means of the different groups are not significantly
different from one another (measured F’s = 0.17, 0.73,
0.07) while the tabular critical F value at the 0.05 level
for 2° and 87° of freedom is approximately (3.10), indicat-
ing a strong agreement among the three groups. Conse-
quently, there is no need to carry out the analysis any
further by using Duncan Multiple Range Test or Scheffe’s
Test to detect where exactly the mean differences lie since
differences are negligible.
Combining the above result with the highest-ranking
causes according to the mean of the averages of the three

Source DF SS MS F P
Type 2 0.189 0.095 0.17 0.840
Error 87 47.100 0.541
Total 89 47.289

S = 0.7358 R-Sq = 0.40% R-Sq(adj) = 0.00%

Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on

Pooled StDev
Level N Mean StDev ---+---------+---------+---------+------
Consultant 28 4.3214 0.6696 (-------------*-------------)
Contractor 37 4.3514 0.7156 (-----------*-----------)
Owner 25 4.2400 0.8307 (--------------*--------------)
---+---------+---------+---------+------
4.00 4.20 4.40 4.60

Pooled StDev = 0.7358

Fig. 2. One-way ANOVA for ‘‘Financial difficulties faced by the contractor’’.

670 G. Sweis et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 665–674

Source DF SS MS F P
Type 2 0.811 0.406 0.73 0.485
Error 87 48.311 0.555
Total 89 49.122

S = 0.7452 R-Sq = 1.65% R-Sq(adj) = 0.00%

Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled StDev

Level N Mean StDev --------+---------+---------+---------+-
Consultant 28 1.7143 0.6587 (-------------*-------------)
Contractor 37 1.9189 0.7951 (-----------*-----------)
Owner 25 1.9200 0.7594 (--------------*--------------)
--------+---------+---------+---------+-
1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20

Pooled StDev = 0.7452

Fig. 3. One-way ANOVA for ‘‘Severe weather conditions on the job site’’.

Source DF SS MS F P
Type 2 0.085 0.043 0.07 0.929
Error 87 50.315 0.578
Total 89 50.400

S = 0.7605 R-Sq = 0.17% R-Sq(adj) = 0.00%

Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled StDev

Level N Mean StDev ---+---------+---------+---------+------
Consultant 28 1.8214 0.6696 (-------------*-------------)
Contractor 37 1.8919 0.8091 (------------*-----------)
Owner 25 1.8800 0.7810 (--------------*--------------)
---+---------+---------+---------+------
1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20

Pooled StDev = 0.7605

Fig. 4. One-way ANOVA for ‘‘Changes in government regulations and laws’’.

groups (Appendix A), namely, ‘‘Financial difficulties faced the contractor’’ is by consensus of all respondents the lead-
by the contractor’’, ‘‘Too many change orders from owner’’, ing cause of construction delay in the Jordanian residential
and ‘‘Poor planning and scheduling of the project by the con- construction sector (Fig. 2). In addition, we notice a strong
tractor’’, it becomes clear that ‘‘financial difficulties faced by agreement among the respondents on the two lowest scoring
 G. Sweis et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 665–674
causes namely, severe weather conditions on the job site
(Fig. 3) and changes in government regulations and laws
(Fig. 4).
8. Conclusion
The findings of this research are discussed below empha-
sizing the most important delay causes according to Dre-
win’s Open Conversion System. In addition, the
discussion will emphasize the relation between the research
findings and other comparable research in the field.
 Internal environmentWithin the contractor’s internal
environment, ‘‘financial difficulties’’ is the first most
important delay cause. Moreover, all three groups of
respondents agree on the severity of this cause thereby
making it one of the most critical delay causes in the
Jordanian residential construction sector. Both the
owner and the consultant ranked ‘‘poor planning and
scheduling’’ of the project by the contractor as most
important delay cause. Additionally it was ranked
third most important according to the mean of the
overall averages of the three groups of respon-
dents.Within the owner’s internal environment, ‘‘too
many change orders’’ is viewed as the second most
important delay cause from the perspective of the con-
tractor and third most important from the perspective
of the consultant. Also this delay cause ranked as sec-
ond most important according to the mean of the
average ranking of all three groups of respondents.
However, there are no significant delay factors accord-
ing to the mean of the overall averages of the three
groups of respondents concerning the consultant’s
internal environment.
 Exogenous factorsThe least ranked causes, according to
the perception of all three parties, were severe weather
conditions on the job site and changes in government
regulations and laws. There are no significant differences
among all respondents’ perceptions regarding these
delay causes.Generally speaking, there is a shared sense
among the respondents that weather and the govern-
ment are not major contributors to residential construc-
tion delays in Jordan. The consensus is that, in Jordan,
contact with the government is basically to obtain cer-
tain permits and this is usually done at both early and
late stages of the project and consequently not having
any major impact as a delay cause.
 Input factorsAmong the Input factors, labor appears to
be most significant. Shortage of manpower (skilled,
semi-skilled, unskilled labor was ranked 3rd highest by
the contractor and 15th highest from the perspective
of the consultant while the owner’s rank of this cause
came very low. Whereas equipment and material were
ranked very low according to all respondents.
The result of this study indicated that financial difficul-
ties faced by the contractor, too many change orders from
671
owner, and poor planning and scheduling of the project
by the contractor continue to be the major sources of res-
idential project delays in Jordan. Using the terminology
of the Drewin’s Open Conversion System, it can be
clearly argued that major delay causes are related to the
internal environment of the system especially that of the
contractor, and the Input factors relating to labor, while
the exogenous factors have very little or negligible effect
on project delay.
9. How does the outcome of this research compare with
outcomes of previous research conducted in the Middle East?
In this study, the contractors, consultants, and owners
were shown to agree statistically on the relative impor-
tance ranking of the causes of delay. Among the most
important causes found are financial difficulties faced
by the contractor and too many change orders. These
results are in agreement with outcomes of research con-
ducted in Saudi Arabia by Assaf et al. [3], Al-Khalil
and Al-Ghafly [5], and Assaf and Al-Hejji [11], Jordan,
Al-Momani [7] and Kuwait, Koushki et al. [6]. However,
there is a clear disagreement with regard to the signifi-
cance of certain delay causes i.e., exogenous factors (gov-
ernment and the weather) were very insignificant in this
research while Al-Momani [7] ranked the weather as a
major delay-causing factor in the Jordanian construction
industry.
10. Implications and future research and developments
This study assessed the factors contributing to delays in
the Jordanian residential sector by grouping the various
factors according to Drewin’s Open Conversion System.
The results have clear implications for the residential con-
struction sector in Jordan and the construction industry at
large. By ranking the various delay causes from the per-
spectives of consultants, contractors, and owners, the
study provides a fresh perspective on an old chronic prob-
lem in the construction sector. This study has provided
evidence on the most significant delay causes in the Jorda-
nian residential construction as well as those least signifi-
cant causes.
Finally, although this study is specific to the country of
Jordan, its results can be applicable to other developing
countries facing similar problems in their residential con-
struction sectors. This research could be used as an avenue
for other researchers to conduct additional studies on con-
struction delay. Several aspects of this research could be
improved, including the following:
 Expanding the research to other types of projects such
as public projects.
 Applying the methodology used in this research to other
developing countries, thereby increasing the data avail-
ability for future comparison among different delay
causes.
672 G. Sweis et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 665–674

Appendix A
Average Average Average Overall
(consultant) (contractor) (owner) average
Labor (L)
1 Shortage of manpower (skilled, semi-skilled, unskilled 3.50 4.16 2.52 3.39
labor)
2 Presence of unskilled labor 3.96 3.19 4.08 3.74

Material (M)
3 Shortage of materials 3.11 2.97 2.88 2.99
4 Delay in materials delivery 2.71 3.08 2.96 2.92
5 Materials price fluctuations 2.82 2.65 2.16 2.54
6 Modifications in materials specifications 2.04 2.59 2.24 2.29

Equipment (E)
7 Shortage of equipments 3.04 2.89 3.32 3.08
8 Failure of equipments 2.93 2.62 2.76 2.77
9 Insufficient equipments 2.50 2.46 3.12 2.69

Internal Environment (IE)

Contractor
10 Lack of contractor’s administrative personnel 3.39 2.49 3.36 3.08
11 Shortage of technical professionals in the contractor’s 4.18 2.92 4.04 3.71
organization
12 Insufficient coordination among the parties by the 4.07 2.59 3.8 3.49
contractor
13 Delay in mobilization 2.64 2.49 2.32 2.48
14 Safety rules and regulations are not followed within the 3.93 2.19 3.96 3.36
contractor’s organization
15 Incompetent technical staff assigned to the project 3.82 2.86 4.12 3.60
16 Improper technical study by the contractor during the 3.89 2.81 3.88 3.53
bidding stage
17 Poor planning and scheduling of the project by the 4.39 2.95 4.32 3.89
contractor
18 Improper handling of the project progress by the 2.86 2.32 2.76 2.65
contractor
19 Ineffective quality control by the contractor 3.96 2.76 3.84 3.52
20 Use of unacceptable construction techniques by the 2.75 2.11 2.84 2.57
contractor
21 Financial difficulties faced by the contractor 4.32 4.35 4.24 4.30
22 Delays in contractor’s payments to subcontractors 3.75 2.73 3.92 3.47
Owner
23 Delays in site preparation 1.96 2.57 2.24 2.26
24 Delay in contractor’s claims settlements 2.54 3.81 2.72 3.02
25 Work suspension by the owner 1.89 2.30 2.48 2.22
26 Too many change orders from owner 4.21 4.24 3.64 4.03
27 Slow decision making from owner 3.86 3.81 2.88 3.52
28 Inference by the owner in the construction operations 3.68 3.76 2.28 3.24
29 Delay in progress payments by the owner 3.43 4.03 2.84 3.43
30 Financial constraints faced by the owner 3.54 2.89 3.32 3.25
31 Insufficient coordination among the parties by 3.07 2.70 3.24 3.00
the Owner
 G. Sweis et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 665–674 673

Appendix A (continued)
Average Average Average Overall
(consultant) (contractor) (owner) average
Consultant
32 Ambiguities and mistakes in specifications and drawings 2.43 3.46 2.76 2.88
33 Poor qualification of consultant engineer’s staff assigned 2.89 3.11 2.88 2.96
to the project
34 Delay in the approval of contractor submissions by the 2.68 4.11 3.08 3.29
engineer
35 Poor coordination by the consultant engineer with the 2.46 2.92 2.72 2.70
parties involved
36 Slow response by the consultant engineer regarding 2.61 3.05 2.76 2.81
testing and inspection
37 Slow response by the consultant engineer to contractor 2.79 3.30 3.04 3.04
inquiries
Exogeneous factors (EF)
Weather
38 Severe weather conditions on the job site 1.71 1.92 1.92 1.85
Government regulations
39 Difficulties in obtaining work permits 2.11 2.00 2.44 2.18
40 Changes in Government regulations and laws 1.82 1.89 1.88 1.86

Appendix B
Labor (L) Overall F-Values P-Values
average
1 Shortage of manpower (skilled, semi-skilled, unskilled labor) 3.39 30.04 0.000
2 Presence of unskilled labor 3.74 10.24 0.000
3 Shortage of materials 2.99 0.44 0.643
4 Delay in materials delivery 2.92 1.36 0.262
5 Materials price fluctuations 2.54 3.65 0.030
6 Modifications in materials specifications 2.29 3.52 0.034
7 Shortage of equipments 3.08 1.71 0.187
8 Failure of equipments 2.77 0.87 0.423
9 Insufficient equipments 2.69 4.36 0.016
10 Lack of contractor’s administrative personnel 3.08 9.00 0.000
11 Shortage of technical professionals in the contractor’s organization 3.71 26.30 0.000
12 Insufficient coordination among the parties by the contractor 3.49 31.12 0.000
13 Delay in mobilization 2.48 0.89 0.413
14 Safety rules and regulations are not followed within the contractor’s 3.36 51.64 0.000
organization
15 Incompetent technical staff assigned to the project 3.60 20.90 0.000
16 Improper technical study by the contractor during the bidding stage 3.53 13.22 0.000
17 Poor planning and scheduling of the project by the contractor 3.89 32.65 0.000
18 Improper handling of the project progress by the contractor 2.65 3.59 0.032
19 Ineffective quality control by the contractor 3.52 22.05 0.000
20 Use of unacceptable construction techniques by the contractor 2.57 8.28 0.001
21 Financial difficulties faced by the contractor 4.30 0.17 0.840
22 Delays in contractor’s payments to subcontractors 3.47 19.28 0.000
23 Delays in site preparation 2.26 3.62 0.031
24 Delay in contractor’s claims settlements 3.02 19.48 0.000
(continued on next page)
674 G. Sweis et al. / International Journal of Project Management 26 (2008) 665–674

Appendix B (continued)
Labor (L) Overall F-Values P-Values
average
25 Work suspension by the owner 2.22 3.41 0.038
26 Too many change orders from owner 4.03 4.63 0.012
27 Slow decision making from owner 3.52 11.16 0.000
28 Inference by the owner in the construction operations 3.24 21.59 0.000
29 Delay in progress payments by the owner 3.43 13.01 0.000
30 Financial constraints faced by the owner 3.25 3.72 0.028
31 Insufficient coordination among the parties by the Owner 3.00 3.13 0.049
32 Ambiguities and mistakes in specifications and drawings 2.88 11.49 0.000
33 Poor qualification of consultant engineer’s staff assigned to the project 2.96 0.68 0.512
34 Delay in the approval of contractor submissions by the engineer 3.29 26.05 0.000
35 Poor coordination by the consultant engineer with the parties involved 2.70 1.87 0.161
36 Slow response by the consultant engineer regarding testing and inspection 2.81 2.00 0.141
37 Slow response by the consultant engineer to contractor inquiries 3.04 2.63 0.078
38 Severe weather conditions on the job site 1.85 0.73 0.485
39 Difficulties in obtaining work permits 2.18 1.83 0.166
40 Changes in Government regulations and laws 1.86 0.07 0.929

References
[1] Stumpf G. Schedule delay analysis. Cost Eng J 2000;42(7):32–43.
[2] Alkass S, Mazerolle M, Harris F. Construction delay analysis
techniques. Constr Manage Econ 1996;14(5):375–94.
[3] Assaf SA, Al-Khalil M, Al-Hazmi M. Causes of delay in large
building construction projects. J Manage Eng 1995;11(2):45–50.
[4] Mezher T, Tawil W. Causes of delays in the construction industry in
Lebanon. Eng Constr Arch Manage J 1998;5(3):252–60.
[5] Al-Khalil M, Al-Ghafly M. Important causes of delay in public utility
projects in Saudi Arabia. Constr Manage Econ 1999;17(5):647–55.
[6] Koushki PA, Al-Rashid K, Kartam N. Delays and cost increases in
construction of private residential projects in Kuwait. Constr Manage
Econ 2005;23(3):285–94.
[7] Al-Moumani A. Construction delays: a quantitative analysis. Int J
Project Manage 2000;18(4):51–9.
[8] Odeh AM, Battaineh HT. Causes of construction delay: traditional
contracts. Int J Project Manage 2002;20(1):67–73.
[9] Aibinu A, Odeyinka H. Construction delays and their causative
factors in Nigeria. J Constr Eng Manage 2006;132(7):667–77.
[10] Drewin FJ. Construction productivity: measurement and improve-
ment through work study. Elsevier; 1985.
[11] Assaf SA, Al-Hejji S. Causes of delay in large construction projects.
Int J Project Manage 2006;24(4):349–57.
[12] Zikmund W. Business research methods (Thomson-South-Western);
2003. p. 388–89.
[13] Kaming P, Olomolaiye P, Holt G, Harris F. Factors influencing
construction time and cost overruns on high-rise projects in Indone-
sia. Constr Manage Econ 1997;15(1):83–94.
[14] Alaghbari W, Razali M, Kadir S, Ernawat G. The significant factors
causing delay of building construction projects in Malaysia. Eng
Constr Arch Manage 2007;14(2):192–206.
[15] Faridi AS, El-Sayegh SM. Significant factors causing delay in the UAE
construction industry. Constr Manage Econ 2006;24(11):1167–76.
[16] Baldwin JR, Mathei JM, Rothbart H, Harris RB. Causes of delay in the
construction industry. J Constr Division, ASCE 1971;97(2):177–87.
[17] Arditi D, Akan GT, Gurdamar S. Reasons for delays in public
projects in Turkey. Constr Manage Econ 1985;3:171–81.
[18] Okpala DC, Aniekwu AN. Causes of high costs of construction in
Nigeria. J Constr Eng Manage, ASCE 1988;114(2):233–44.
[19] Dlakwa MM, Culpin MF. Reasons for overrun in public sector
construction projects in Nigeria. Int J Project Manage 1990;8(4):237–41.
[20] Mansfield NR, Ugwu OO, Doran T. Causes of delay and cost
overruns in Nigerian construction projects. Int J Project Manage
1994;12(4):254–60.
[21] Semple C, Hartman FT, Jergeas G. Construction claims and disputes:
causes and cost/time overruns. J Constr Eng Manage, ASCE
1994;120(4):785–95.
[22] Ogunlana SO, Promkuntong K, Jearkjirm V. Construction delays in a
fast-growing economy: comparing Thailand with other economies.
Int J Project Manage 1996;14(1):37–45.
[23] Lo TY, Fung IWH, Tung KCF. Construction delays in Hong Kong
civil engineering projects. J Constr Eng Manage, ASCE
2006;132(6):636–49.
[24] Chan DWM, Kumaraswamy MM. Reasons for delay in civil
engineering projects—the case of Hong Kong. Hong Kong Instit
Eng Trans 1996;2(3):1–8.
[25] Shi J, Cheung S, Arditi D. Construction delay computation method. J
Constr Eng Manage, ASCE 2001;127(1):60–5.
[26] Seymour Sudman. Applied sampling. New York: Academic Press;
1976. p. 86–7.
[27] Hegab MY, Smith JR. Delay time analysis in microtunneling
projects. J Constr Eng Manage, ASCE 2007;133(2):191–5.
[28] Abdul-Rahman H, Berawi MA, Berawi AR, Mohamed O, Othman
M, Yahya IA. Delay mitigation in the Malaysian construction
industry. J Constr Eng Manage 2006;132(2):125–33.
[29] Youngjae K, Kyungrai K, Dongwoo S. Delay analysis method using
delay section. J Constr Eng Manage 2005;131(11):1155–64.
[30] Yates JK, Epstein A. Avoiding and minimizing construction delay
claim disputes in relational contracting. J Profl Issues Eng Educ Pract
2006;132(2):168–79.
[31] Sambasivan M, Wen Soon Y. Causes and effects of delays in Malaysian
construction industry. Int J Project Manage 2007;25(5):517–26.
[32] Zaneldin EK. Construction claims in United Arab Emirates: types,
causes, and frequency. Int J Project Manage 2006;24(5):453–9.
[33] Zwikael O, Cohen Y, Sadeh A. Non-delay scheduling as a managerial
approach for managing projects. Int J Project Manage
2006;24(4):330–6.
[34] Arditi D, Pattanakitchamroon T. Selecting a delay analysis method in
resolving construction claims. Int J Constr Manage 2006;24(2):145–55.