factors affecting performance of contractors
TRANSCRIPT
The Construction, Building and Real Estate Research Conference of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
Held at Dauphine Université, Paris, 2-3 September 2010 ISBN 978-1-84219-619-9 © RICS 12 Great George Street London SW1P 3AD United Kingdom www.rics.org/cobra September 2010 The RICS COBRA Conference is held annually. The aim of COBRA is to provide a platform for the dissemination of original research and new developments within the specific disciplines, sub-disciplines or field of study of:
Management of the construction process
• Cost and value management • Building technology • Legal aspects of construction and procurement • Public private partnerships • Health and safety • Procurement • Risk management • Project management
The built asset
• Property investment theory and practice • Indirect property investment • Property market forecasting • Property pricing and appraisal • Law of property, housing and land use planning • Urban development • Planning and property markets • Financial analysis of the property market and property assets • The dynamics of residential property markets • Global comparative analysis of property markets • Building occupation • Sustainability and real estate • Sustainability and environmental law • Building performance
The property industry
• Information technology • Innovation in education and training • Human and organisational aspects of the industry • Alternative dispute resolution and conflict management • Professional education and training
Peer review process All papers submitted to COBRA were subjected to a double-blind (peer review) refereeing process. Referees were drawn from an expert panel, representing respected academics from the construction and building research community. The conference organisers wish to extend their appreciation to the following members of the panel for their work, which is invaluable to the success of COBRA. Rifat Akbiyikli Sakarya University, Turkey Rafid Al Khaddar Liverpool John Moores University, UK Ahmed Al Shamma’a Liverpool John Moores University, UK Tony Auchterlounie University of Bolton, UK Kwasi Gyau Baffour Awuah University of Wolverhampton, UK Kabir Bala Ahmadu Bello University, Nigeria Juerg Bernet Danube University Krems, Austria John Boon UNITEC, New Zealand Douw Boshoff University of Pretoria, South Africa Richard Burt Auburn University, USA Judith Callanan RMIT University, Australia Kate Carter Heriot-Watt University, UK Keith Cattell University of Cape Town, South Africa Antoinette Charles Glasgow Caledonian University, UK Fiona Cheung Queensland University of Technology, Australia Sai On Cheung City University of Hong Kong Samuel Chikafalimani University of Pretoria, South Africa Ifte Choudhury Texas A and M University, USA Chris Cloete University of Pretoria, South Africa Alan Coday Anglia Ruskin University, UK Michael Coffey Anglia Ruskin University, UK Nigel Craig Glasgow Caledonian University, UK Ayirebi Dansoh KNUST, Ghana Peter Davis Curtin University, Australia Peter Defoe Calford Seaden, UK Grace Ding University of Technology Sydney, Australia Hemanta Doloi University of Melbourne, Australia John Dye TPS Consult, UK Peter Edwards RMIT, Australia Charles Egbu University of Salford, UK Ola Fagbenle Covenant University, Nigeria Ben Farrow Auburn University, USA Peter Fenn University of Manchester, UK Peter Fewings University of the West of England, UK
Peter Fisher University of Northumbria, UK Chris Fortune University of Salford, UK Valerie Francis University of Melbourne, Australia Rod Gameson University of Wolverhampton, UK Abdulkadir Ganah University of Central Lancashire, UK Seung Hon Han Yonsei University, South Korea Anthony Hatfield University of Wolverhampton, UK Theo Haupt Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa Dries Hauptfleisch University of the Free State, South Africa Paul Holley Auburn University, USA Danie Hoffman University of Pretoria, South Africa Keith Hogg University of Northumbria, UK Alan Hore Construction IT Alliance, Ireland Bon-Gang Hwang National University of Singapore Joseph Igwe University of Lagos, Nigeria Adi Irfan Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia Javier Irizarry Georgia Institute of Technology, USA Usman Isah University of Manchester, UK David Jenkins University of Glamorgan, UK Godfaurd John University of Central Lancashire, UK Keith Jones University of Greenwich, UK Dean Kashiwagi Arizona State University, USA Nthatisi Khatleli University of Cape Town, South Africa Mohammed Kishk Robert Gordon’s University, UK Andrew Knight Nottingham Trent University, UK Scott Kramer Auburn University, USA Esra Kurul Oxford Brookes University, UK Richard Laing Robert Gordon’s University, UK Terence Lam Anglia Ruskin University, UK Veerasak Likhitruangsilp Chulalongkorn University, Thailand John Littlewood University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, UK Junshan Liu Auburn University, USA Champika Liyanage University of Central Lancashire, UK Greg Lloyd University of Ulster, UK S M Lo City University of Hong Kong Mok Ken Loong Yonsei University, South Korea Martin Loosemore University of New South Wales, Australia David Manase Glasgow Caledonian University, UK Donny Mangitung Universitas Tadulako, Malaysia Patrick Manu University of Wolverhampton, UK Tinus Maritz University of Pretoria, South Africa Hendrik Marx University of the Free State. South Africa Ludwig Martin Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa Wilfred Matipa Liverpool John Moores University, UK Steven McCabe Birmingham City University, UK Annie McCartney University of Glamorgan, UK Andrew McCoy Virginia Tech, USA Enda McKenna Queen’s University Belfast, UK Kathy Michell University of Cape Town, South Africa Roy Morledge Nottingham Trent University, UK
Michael Murray University of Strathclyde, UK Saka Najimu Glasgow Caledonian University, UK Stanley Njuangang University of Central Lancashire, UK Henry Odeyinka University of Ulster, UK Ayodejo Ojo Ministry of National Development, Seychelles Michael Oladokun University of Uyo, Nigeria Alfred Olatunji Newcastle University, Australia Austin Otegbulu Beliz Ozorhon Bogazici University, Turkey Obinna Ozumba University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa Robert Pearl University of KwaZulu, Natal, South Africa Srinath Perera Northumbria University, UK Joanna Poon Nottingham Trent University, UK Keith Potts University of Wolverhampton, UK Elena de la Poza Plaza Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Spain Matthijs Prins Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Hendrik Prinsloo University of Pretoria, South Africa Richard Reed Deakin University, Australia Zhaomin Ren University of Glamorgan, UK Herbert Robinson London South Bank University, UK Kathryn Robson RMIT, Australia Simon Robson University of Northumbria, UK David Root University of Cape Town, South Africa Kathy Roper Georgia Institute of Technology, USA Steve Rowlinson University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Paul Royston Nottingham Trent University, UK Paul Ryall University of Glamorgan, UK Amrit Sagoo Coventry University, UK Alfredo Serpell Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile Winston Shakantu Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Africa Yvonne Simpson University of Greenwich, UK John Smallwood Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Africa Heather Smeaton-Webb MUJV Ltd. UK Bruce Smith Auburn University, USA Melanie Smith Leeds Metropolitan University, UK Hedley Smyth University College London, UK John Spillane Queen’s University Belfast, UK Suresh Subashini University of Wolverhampton, UK Kenneth Sullivan Arizona State University, USA Joe Tah Oxford Brookes University, UK Derek Thomson Heriot-Watt University, UK Matthew Tucker Liverpool John Moores University, UK Chika Udeaja Northumbria University, UK Basie Verster University of the Free State, South Africa Francois Viruly University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa John Wall Waterford Institute of Technology, Ireland Sara Wilkinson Deakin University, Australia Trefor Williams University of Glamorgan, UK
Bimbo Windapo University of Cape Town, South Africa Francis Wong Hong Kong Polytechnic University Ing Liang Wong Glasgow Caledonian University, UK Andrew Wright De Montfort University, UK Peter Wyatt University of Reading, UK Junli Yang University of Westminster, UK Wan Zahari Wan Yusoff Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Malaysia George Zillante University of South Australia Benita Zulch University of the Free State, South Africa Sam Zulu Leeds Metropolitan University, UK
In addition to this, the following specialist panel of peer-review experts assessed papers for the COBRA session arranged by CIB W113 John Adriaanse London South Bank University, UK Julie Adshead University of Salford, UK Alison Ahearn Imperial College London, UK Rachelle Alterman Technion, Israel Deniz Artan Ilter Istanbul Technical University, Turkey Jane Ball University of Sheffield, UK Luke Bennett Sheffield Hallam University, UK Michael Brand University of New South Wales, Australia Penny Brooker University of Wolverhampton, UK Alice Christudason National University of Singapore Paul Chynoweth University of Salford, UK Sai On Cheung City University of Hong Kong Julie Cross University of Salford, UK Melissa Daigneault Texas A&M University, USA Steve Donohoe University of Plymouth, UK Ari Ekroos University of Helsinki, Finland Tilak Ginige Bournemouth University, UK Martin Green Leeds Metropolitan University, UK David Greenwood Northumbria University, UK Asanga Gunawansa National University of Singapore Jan-Bertram Hillig University of Reading, UK Rob Home Anglia Ruskin University, UK Peter Kennedy Glasgow Caledonian University, UK Anthony Lavers Keating Chambers, UK Wayne Lord Loughborough University, UK Sarah Lupton Cardiff University Tim McLernon University of Ulster, UK Frits Meijer TU Delft, The Netherlands Jim Mason University of the West of England, UK Brodie McAdam University of Salford, UK Tinus Maritz University of Pretoria, South Africa
Francis Moor University of Salford, UK Issaka Ndekugri University of Wolverhampton, UK John Pointing Kingston University, UK Razani Abdul Rahim Universiti Technologi, Malaysia Linda Thomas-Mobley Georgia Tech, USA Paul Tracey University of Salford, UK Yvonne Scannell Trinity College Dublin, Ireland Cathy Sherry University of New South Wales, Australia Julian Sidoli del Ceno Birmingham City University, UK Keren Tweeddale London South Bank University, UK Henk Visscher TU Delft, The Netherlands Peter Ward University of Newcastle, Australia
1
Factors Affecting Performance of Contractors on Construction
Projects in Lagos State, Nigeria
Ajayi,O.M.
University of Lagos,Department of building,Akoka-Yaba, Lagos state.
Ogunsanmi,O.E.
University of Lagos,Department of building,Akoka-Yaba, Lagos state.
bode-ogunsanmi2004.co.uk
Ajayi,K.A.
Hadejaz Nigeria Limited.
Ofili,C.M.
University of Lagos,Department of building,Akoka-Yaba, Lagos state.
Abstract
The study is set out to highlight the factors affecting the performance of contractors on
construction projects within Lagos State. This will assist clients in the choice of the right
contractors to select for realising their projects. A descriptive research survey was used and
simple random sampling technique was adopted for the study. Fifty questionnaires were
designed and administered to indigenous main contractors in order to elicit information
regarding the study. Forty questionnaires were returned from which one was treated as
invalid due to missing responses. From the results obtained, it was found that the most
suitable performance yardsticks to ascertain whether a contractor has performed adequately
are the quality of work, the delivery of the project on time, the productivity rate of the
contractor and project completion within the estimated budget. It was discovered that
significant factors affecting performance as categorised into ten groups are site conditions,
2
complexity of project, subcontractors experience, collaboration of project participants,
experience of workers, quality control of materials amongst others. Excellent contractor
performance would lead to reduced construction cost, improved quality of work and
reduction in waste among others.
Keywords:Contractors,Performance,Construction, projects,
1.0 Introduction
Nigeria has an estimated population of 150M and it is located in the sub-saharan region of
Africa.Its land area is 924770km2 ,and it is made up of 36states.The country has a significant
role in the socioeconomic and political arena of the African continent(Mansfield,Ugwu and
Doran,1994).The construction industry contribute greatly to the gross domestic product.In
Nigeria,construction investment accounts for over 60% of the gross fixed capital
formation(GFCF) i.e the total national investment(Dlakwa and Culpin,1990).Problems in
construction projects in Nigeria therefore hold back planned economic developments.Current
construction projects are complex efforts requiring the support of the design and construction
profession(Ogunsemi and Jagboro,2006).Therefore,a realistic time for execution of project
will reduce the possibility of disputes between state agency and the contractors(Al-
momani,2000)It also reflect the contractor’s ability to organize and control site operations,to
optimally allocate resources and to manage the flow of information to and from the design
team and among contractors(Xiao and Proverbs,2002).The correct choice of construction
contractor(s) is a critical function of either the client or the client’s consultant\project
manager.It usually has a significant impact on the success or failure of a project.Attempting
to predict contractor performance with regard to a forthcoming project requires appraisal of
current workload and residual resource capacities as well as investigation of performance on
recent project(Kuwaraswamy,1996).One of the most difficult decisions taken by the client in
the construction industry is selecting the contractor.Every construction project faces adversity
3
and uncertainty and an inappropriate contractor increases the chances of delays,cost
overrruns,substandard work,disputes or bankruptcy(Elinwa and Joshua,2001).Nigerian
contractors are faced with the problems of lack of technical education,managerial skill and
finance when compared with their counterparts in the developed countries. The performance
of a project will definitely correlate with the performance of a contractor. The evaluation of
performance has been a challenge for the construction industry for decades. Several models
and procedures have been proposed for the evaluation and measurement of project
performance. However, most of these procedures limit their analysis to selected measures
such as cost, schedule, or labour productivity (Alarcon, 1994). The increasing
competitiveness of the Construction Industry (CI) motivates companies to assess performance
and implement efficiency improvement strategies in order to obtain competitive advantage.
Therefore, focus is to be directed towards the site constructors which are the contractors. To
raise the levels of competitiveness, contractors need to increase the use of performance
assessment tools as a means of supporting performance improvement programmes.
contractor performance is defined to embrace construction cost, construction time,
construction quality and sustainable development, the philosophy being that the achievement
of one aspect of performance should not be at the expense of another (Hong and Proverbs,
2003). From the standpoint of Poon (2003), the major indicator of the contractor’s
performance is the client’s satisfaction. poor contractor performance, as characterized by
poor work quality and low productivity, is common in the industry.Furthermore, other
problems associated with poor performance are cost over-runs, rework, late completion,
unacceptably high accident rate, insensitivity to environmental considerations, poor work
practices and adversarial relationships (Allens, 1994; Henry, 1994; Lobelo, 1996;Alwi,
Hampson and Mohammed, 2002). It is against this background that the study seeks to
determine the factors affecting the performance of contractors on construction projects. The
4
identification of these factors, the causes of poor performance, and a measurement of their
severity, would provide useful information that would allow management to act to reduce
their negative effect in advance.Therefore,considering the state of project execution in
Nigeria and the level of injury inflicted to various parties in the project execution process,it
becomes imperative to critically analyse the factors affecting the performance of the
contractors.
2.0 Performance Measurement
Measuring performance is a complex problem (Ofori and Chan, 2001as cited in Alwi et al.,
2002). This is because every contractor is unique in terms of the manner in which he follows
design specifications, method of delivery, administration, and composition of team members.
Evaluation of performance has been a challenge for the construction industry for decades.
According to Neely (1995), performance measurement is the set of metrics used to quantify
both the efficiency and effectiveness of actions. In the manufacturing and construction
industries, performance measurement is used as a systematic way of judging project
performance by evaluating the inputs, outputs and the final project outcomes. However, very
few companies systematically measure their performance in a holistic way. Moreover, the
existing systems tend to focus more on product and less on process and design. This can lead
to the sub-optimal quality of the performance measurement system, the misjudging or relative
performance, and to complacency and the denying of appropriate rewards to the deserving.
Performance measurement is the regular collecting and reporting of information about the
inputs, efficiency and effectiveness of construction projects. It is used to judge project
performances, both in terms of the financial and non-financial aspects and to compare and
contrast the performance with others, in order to improve programme efficiency and
effectiveness in their organizations (Takim et al., 2003).
5
Moreover, according to Steven et al. (1996), measurements are needed to track, forecast, and
ultimately control those variables that are important to the success of a project, and this has
been agreed by many researchers and practitioners (Sinclair and Zairi, 1995; Mbugua et al.,
1999; Love et al., 2000 and Chan, 2001). More specifically, Kelada (1999) suggests that the
performance measurements used apply not only to product or service quality and to business
performance, but should also be extended to quality management, customer satisfaction,
needs, wants and expectations.
Performance measurement provides necessary information for process control, and makes it
possible to establish challenging and feasible goals. It is also necessary to support the
implementation of business strategies.
Despite the importance of performance measurement, it has not been widely implemented in
construction companies and information on the performance of the construction industry as a
whole is also scarce (Dayana et al., 2005).However contractor performance is critical to the
success of any construction project which is the determinant of cost,time and quality standard
because the contractor convert the design into practical reality(Xiao and
Proverbs,2003).Untimely completion of construction projects has been found to be a major
setback in the construction industries in Nigeria(Amu,Adeoye and Faluyi,2005).And
according to Odusami and Olusanya(2000) projects executed in Lagos metropolis
experienced an average delay of 51% of planned duration for most projects.Construction cost
in Nigeria is 40% expensive when compared with Kenya,Brazil(35%) and
Britain(30%).Therefore an improved contractor performance can leads to increased client
satisfaction,improvement in reputation and competitiveness in the market(Ogunsemi and
Jagboro,2006).
6
3.0 Reseach methods
To achieve the objective of this study, a structured questionnaire was designed to serve as the
instrument for the collection of data; the designed questionnaire was administered on 50
randomly selected indigeous contractors in Lagos State. Out of the 50 questionnaires sent out,
only 40 were retrieved representing a response rate of 80% although one of the questionnaire
was treated as invalid due to missing response.Data collected were analyzed using Statistical
Package for social Sciences (SPSS) to generate the descriptive statistics and the mean
deviation were calculated.The mean deviation is a measure of the spread of a distribution
from the mean, or average value. If there are n observations with a mean of m, the mean
deviation is the sum of the absolute values of the differences of the observation values from
m, divided by n. Mean Response Analysis is where the mean item score is determined for
each of the variables.The data collected on the identified factors were analysed using relative
importance index (i.e. the mean item score). The mean item score (MIS) was computed using
the formula:
where:
i =response category index = 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 for nil, low, average, high and very high
respectively.
Wi = the weight assigned to the ith response = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 respectively.
Xi = frequency of the ith response given as percentage of the total responses for each cause
(Odeh and Battaineh, 2002).
7
4.0 Results and Analysis
4.1 Background information
Most of the professionals are civil engieer(56.4%),Builder(25.6%) and
Architect(2.6%) as shown in table 4.1.Table 4.2 shows the highest eduational
qualification with B.sc. rank as the highest(61.5%).Table 4.3 shows that the
respondents experience in the construction industry is between 0-5years(56.4%).
Table 4.1: Respondents Profession distribution
Respondent's profession Frequency Percent (%)
Civil Engineer 22 56.4
Builder 10 25.6
Architect 1 2.6
Quantity Surveyor 3 7.7
Estate Surveyor 2 5.1
Total 38 97.4
Quality Control 1 2.6
Total 39 100
Table 4.2: Respondents Highest Educational Qualification
Respondent's highest
educational qualification Frequency Percent (%)
N.D 1 2.6
H.N.D. 9 23.1
B.Sc 24 61.5
M.Sc 5 12.8
Total 39 100
Table 4.3: Distribution of respondent’s years of experience
Respondent's years of experience Frequency Percent
- 2 5.1
0-5 years 22 56.4
6-10 years 10 25.6
11-15years 3 7.7
16-20 years 2 5.1
Total 39 100.0
8
4.2 Factors Affecting Performance of Contractors on Site
Factors affecting performance of contractors as categorised into ten related factors have been
ranked by the respondents as shown in Table 4.4 below which gives the mean item score of
the factors as well as their ranking in decreasing level of influence on a contractor’s
performance. The three most significant project-characteristic factors are site conditions,
complexity of project and its duration. The financial capability of the client, delay in
approvals and delay of progress payment to contractors are the three highest ranked client
related factors. The three highest ranked subcontractors’s related factors are Sub-contractors
commitment to meet cost, time and quality targets, Sub-contractors Experience and Literacy
of subcontractors workmen. The most significant project management related factors are
Collaboration of project participants, Quality, health and safety program and Technical skill
of the project manager. The five most significant consultant related factors affecting project
performance are consultant’s commitment to ensure construction work according to
specification, consultant cooperation to solve problems, adequacy of design and
specifications, design team experience and consultants involvement to monitor the project
progress. Also, the five most important resource related factors are experience of workers,
skill of workers, supply of material, quality control of material and working capital. The four
most important external environmental factors in decreasing order include community issues,
weather conditions, economic situation (boom or meltdown) and government policy.
Table 4.4: Ranking of Factors affecting performance
Project-Characteristics related factors MIS Category Ranking
Site conditions 3.82 1
Complexity of project 3.67 2
Duration of Project 3.56 3
Type & Nature of project 3.51 5
Size of project 3.51 5
Location of Project 3.51 5
Number of floors/Vertical height of the project 3.44 8
Constructability of project design 3.43 9
9
Client’s related factors
Financial capability of Client 3.77 1
Delay in approvals 3.69 2
Delay of progress payment to contractors 3.67 3.5
Client's experience whether he is a sophisticated or specialized client. 3.67 3.5
Client's interference during construction 3.62 5
Client's erratic changes 3.59 6
Client's ability to make decision 3.54 7.5
Client's emphasis on quick construction instead of quality 3.54 7.5
Client's emphasis on low construction cost 3.36 9
Client's ability to brief the project objective 3.26 10
Size of client's organization 2.74 11
Subcontractors related factors
Sub-contractors commitment to meet cost, time and quality targets 4.09 1
Sub-contractors Experience 3.77 2
Literacy of subcontractors workmen 3.76 3
Contractors Control over subcontractors works. 3.70 4.5
Timely payment to sub-contractors 3.70 4.5
Sub-contractors leaders working relationship with one another 3.57 6
Skill/Training of the Sub-contractors labour force 3.51 7
Lingua Franca of subcontractors workmen 2.97 8
Project Management related factors
Collaboration of project participants 4.13 1
Quality, health and safety program 4.08 2
Technical skill of the project manager 4.05 3.5
Project manager early and continuous involvement in the project. 4.05 3.5
Organizing skill of the project manager 3.87 5
Integration of design and construction process 3.81 6
Project manager adaptability to changes in the project plan 3.79 7
Budget progress monitoring 3.77 8
Implementation of an effective quality assurance program 3.70 9.5
Presence of an Organizational structure 3.70 9.5
Speed of information dissemination 3.46 11
Formal dispute resolution process 3.15 12
Consultant related factors
Consultants commitment to ensure construction work according to specification 4.26 1
Consultant cooperation to solve problems 4.10 2
Adequacy of design and specifications 4.08 3
Design team experience 4.05 4.5
Consultants involvement to monitor the project progress 4.05 4.5
Adequacy of specifications and drawings 3.97 6
Delay in production of design documents 3.90 7
Changes to Original design during construction 3.70 8
10
Variations to work 3.46 9
Resource Related Factors
Experience of workers 4.28 1
Skill of workers 4.23 2
Supply of material 4.21 3.5
Quality Control of material 4.21 3.5
Working capital 4.13 5
Suitability of equipment 4.05 6
Availability of credit facilities 3.97 7
Availability of Incentives for workforce 3.67 8
Contractual relationship related factors
Control mechanism of the project activities 4.05 1
Communication system among project participants 3.82 2
Overall managerial actions 3.74 3
Feedback capabilities between project participants 3.43 4
Contract modifications 3.38 5
External Environment Factors
Community Issues 3.97 1
Weather conditions 3.78 2
Economic situation (Boom or Meltdown) 3.66 3
Government policy 3.62 4
Technological advancement of project location 3.49 5
Political condition 3.21 6
Civil Unrest 3.18 7
Physical environment 3.10 8
Bureaucracy in government agencies 3.08 9.5
Industrial relations environment 3.08 9.5
Professional ethics of government officials 3.03 11
Social environment 2.92 12
Cultural beliefs 2.51 13
Procurement related factors
Conditions of Contract 3.56 1
Procurement method 3.33 2
Tendering method 3.21 3
Contractor related factors
Management skill of Site Managers 4.24 1
Contractors Experience 4.18 2
Size of labour force 4.15 3
Construction method adopted 3.97 4
Leadership style of workforce 3.95 5
Supervision of workmen 3.90 6
Planning of site activities 3.82 7
Cashflow of the contractor 3.79 8
11
Skill of Mechanical Equipment operators 3.72 9
Site Housekeeping 3.46 10
Literacy of Workmen 3.44 11
Lingua Franca/Vernacular of Workmen/workforce 3.16 12
4.3 Effects of Adequate Contractor’s Performance on the Construction Project
Results of respondent’s agreement with the tabulated effects of contractors performance on a
construction project is shown in Table 4.5 below. The table shows that the majority of
respondents agree to a large extent that (in decreasing order of significance) improved quality
work, minimal construction errors and mistakes, absence or minimal accidents on site and
reduced construction cost are the four most significant effects of good contractor’s
performance with positive response ratings of 91.9%, 87.2%, 82.1% and 78.4% respectively.
Table 4.5: level of agreement of effects of contractor’s performance
Effects Response Frequency Percent (%)
Agree 29 78.4 Reduced Construction Cost
Disagree 8 21.6
Agree 34 91.9 Improved quality of work
Disagree 3 8.1
Agree 25 64.1 Reduced construction time
Disagree 14 35.9
Agree 24 64.9 Absence of defects and need for
rectification Disagree 13 35.1
Agree 32 82.1 Absence or minimal accidents on
site Disagree 7 17.9
Agree 29 78.4 Absence or reduced need for
rework Disagree 8 21.6
Agree 34 87.2 Minimal construction errors and
mistakes Disagree 5 12.8
Agree 25 64.1 Reduced client’s complaints
Disagree 14 35.9
Agree 24 64.9 Minimal dispute among
construction team Disagree 13 35.1
Agree 30 81.1 Reduction in Waste
Disagree 7 18.9
12
4.4 Causes of poor contractor performance on construction project
The significant causes that have a mean item score equal to or above 2.00 in decreasing order
of significance are inadequate planning, mismanagement of funds, delay in making decisions
and approvals by the owner, affection for the use of low quality materials, poor
communication and communication, late deliveries, contractors lack of experience,
discrepancies between architectural, structural and mechanical drawings, inadequate and
unclear drawings, bad weather conditions and lack of mobilization fee. Causes which were
ranked low as insignificant causes of poor performance are size of contractor’s firm,
inadequate subcontractors, greed, difficulties in obtaining work permit and diversity of the
construction team. This implies that a smaller workforce of the contractor does not
necessarily mean that the performance would be adversely affected. Neither does the
diversity of the workforce in terms of cultural background, tribe or business objectives tend
to result in poor performance of the contractor.
13
Table 4.6: Ranking of the causes of poor contractor performance
S/N Causes MIS 1
Inadequate or poor planning 2.41
2 Mismanagement of Funds 2.32
3 Delay in making decisions and approvals by owner 2.27
4 Affection for the use of low quality materials 2.27
5 Poor coordination and communication 2.22
6 Late deliveries 2.18
7 Contractor's lack of experience 2.16
8 Discrepancies between Architectural, Structural, Mechanical drawings etc. 2.13
9 Inadequate and unclear drawings 2.11
10 Bad Weather Conditions 2.00
11 Lack of mobilization fee/ Inadequate working capital 2.00
12 Changes in the design and scope 1.97
13 Late information 1.92
14 Low skill level among the workers 1.90
15 Poor estimation of quantity of work involved 1.83
16 Inadequacy to make Claims and follow to a logical conclusion according to the Conditions of Contract 1.81
17 Size of Contractor's firm/workforce 1.76
18 Inadequate subcontractors 1.74
19 Greed! even though quality is sacrificed 1.71
20 Difficulties in obtaining work permit 1.66
21 Diversity of the construction team (in terms of tribe, culture, business objectives) 1.32
14
5.0 Conclusions
To measure contractors performance on construction project the suitable yardsticks are the
quality of the work, delivery of project on time, the rate at which the contractor performs the
work, Project completion to budget and Degree/Level of Clients Satisfaction. The most
significant factors affecting contractor performance under project characteristics are site
conditions, complexity of project and duration of project. It can be inferred that the conditions of
a site, whether swampy, water-logged, having a steep terrain would affect the performance of the
contractor. Also, the technical complexities to be encountered during the construction process
and the estimated time for project completion would also have significant effect on contractor’s
performance. The three most significant of the client-related factors affecting contractors’
performance are the financial capability of client, delay in approvals and delay of progress
payment to contractors. Where interim certificates are not paid on time or the financial capability
of the client is not consistent or where the client delays approvals of materials and other items,
these could adversely affect contractor’s performance. The three most significant subcontractor
related factors affecting contractor performance are sub-contractors commitment to meet cost,
time and quality targets, sub-contractors experience and literacy of subcontractors’ workmen.
Where the contractor exhibits a lackadaisical attitude towards the work in terms of completing
the work within the estimated budget, time and to the required quality, this adversely affects
contractor’s performance as he may militate against the overall progress of the project. The three
most significant project management related factors are collaboration of project participants,
quality, health and safety program and technical skill of the project manager. An effective
quality, health and safety program, excellent collaboration of project participants and adequate
technical skill of the project manager all would ensure good contractor performance on any
15
construction project. Significant contractor related factors are management skill of site managers,
contractors experience and size of labour force. An optimum site labour force is required where
the labour is adequate to carry out a particular work on site. The experience of the contractor also
takes its toll on his performance. Well-experienced contractors would have acquired information
about the do’s and dont’s of the construction process and this would therefore reflect in their
performance.The major effects of performance of the contractor on construction projects are
improved quality of work, minimal construction errors and mistakes, reduction in waste and
reduced construction cost.The major causes of contractor’s poor performance are inadequate or
poor planning, mismanagement of funds, delay in making decisions and approvals by owner and
affection for the use of low quality materials.
6.0 References
Alarcon, L.F. (1994). Tools for the Identification and Reduction Waste in Construction Projects.
In Alarcon, Luis, (Ed.) Lean Construction, A.A.Balkema, Netherlands 1997.
Allens, A.R. (1994). “Quality Management in the Construction Phase of the Traditional
Procurement System in South Africa: The Case of the Western Cape”, University of Cape
Town in Cape Town,Western Cape, South Africa.
Al-Momani A.H. (2000). “Construction Delay: A Quantitative Analysis.” International Journal
Of Project Management, 18(1):51-59.
Amu,O.O.,Adeoye,O.A.and Faluyi,S.O.(2005).Effects of incidental factors on the completion
time of projects in selected Nigeria cities.Journal of Applied Sciences,5(1),144-146.
Chan, A. (2001). A Quest for Better Construction Quality in Hong Kong. Construction Paper
131, CIOB Construction Information Quarterly, 3(2): 9-16
Construction Industry Board (1998). Lean Construction. Adopted from Construction Industry
Board Web Site: http://www.ciboard.org.uk/lean.
Dayana, B.C., Formoso, C.T., Kagioglou, M. and Alarcon (2005). Performance measurement
systems for benchmarking in the construction industry.
16
Dlakwa,M.M.and Culpin,M.F.(1990).Reasons for overrun in public sector construction projects
in Nigeria,8(4):237-241.
Elinwa,A.U.and Joshua,M.(2001).Time-overrun factors in Nigerian construction
industry.Journal of construction Engineeering and Management,127(5):419-425.
Henry, A.L. (1994). “The Factors Associated with Insolvency Among Contractors in the South
African Construction Industry: a Case Study of the Western Cape Region”. University of
Cape Town in Cape town, Western Cape, South Africa.
Hong, X. and Proverbs, D.(2003). Factors influencing contractor performance: an international
investigation. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. 10(5), 322-332.
Jagboro,G.O.(1987).The need for a code of practice for tendering in Nigeria.The professional
builder,2(1),26-27.
Kumaraswamy,M.M.(1996).Contractor Evaluation and Selection:a Hong Kong
perspective.Building and Environment,31(3),273-282.
Lobelo, L. (1996). “An Investigation into Factors Associated with Insolvencies Amongst Civil
Engineering Contracting Firms in South Africa”. University of Cape Town in Cape Town,
Western Cape, South Africa.
Love, P. E. D., and Holt, G. D. (2000). Construction business performance measurement: the
SPM alternative. Business Project Management Journal, 6(5): 408-416.
Mansfield,N.R.,Ugwu,O.O.and Doran,T.(1994).Causes of delay and cost overruns in Nigerian
construction projects.International journal of project management,12(4),254-260.
Mbugua, L. M., Harris, P., Holt, G. D., and Olomolaiye, P. O (1999). A framework for
determining critical success factors influencing construction business performance. In:
Hughes, W. (ed) Procs. 15Th Annual ARCOM Conference. September 5-7, Reading:
ARCOM. 1: 255-264
Noulmanee A. (1999) “International Causes of Delays in Highway Construction Projects in
Thailand.” www.ait.clet.com, July.
Odusami,K.T. and Olusanya,O.O.(2000).Client’s contribution to delays on building projects.The
Quantity Surveyor,30,30-33.
Ofori, G and Chan, S.L. (2001) Factors Influencing Development of Construction Enterprises in
Singapore. Journal of Construction Management and Economics, 19:2, 145-154.
Ofori, G. (1991) Programmes for the improving the performance of the contracting firms in
developing countries: a review of approaches and appropriate options. Construction
Management and Economics, 9 ,19-38.
17
Ogunsemi,D.R.and Jagboro,G.O.(2006).Time-cost model for building projects in
Nigeria.Construction Management and Economics,24,pp253-258.
Pillai, A. S., Joshi, A., Rao, K.S. (2002). Performance measurement of R&D projects in a multi-
project, concurrent engineering environment. International Journal of Project
Management, 20:165-177
Poon, J. (2003). Professional ethics for surveyors and Construction project performance: what
we need to know. Proceedings of the RICS Foundation Construction and Building
Research Conference.
Sinclair, D. and Zairi, M. (1995). Effective process management through performance
measurement: part III-an integrated model of total quality-based performance
measurement. Business Process Re-engineering & Management Journal, 1(3): 50-65
Stevens, J. D. (1996). Blueprint for measuring project quality. Journal of Manaement in
Engineering, ASCE, 12(2): 34-39
Takim, R and Akintoye, A (2002) Performance indicators for successful construction project
performance. In: Greenwood, D (Ed.), 18th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September
2002, University of Northumbria. Association of Researchers in Construction
Management, Vol. 2, 545-55.
Takim, R, Akintoye, A and Kelly, J (2003) Performance measurement systems in construction.
In: Greenwood, D J (Ed.), 19th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2003,
University of Brighton. Association of Researchers in Construction Management, Vol. 1,
423-32.
World Bank (1984). The Construction Industry; Issues and Strategies in Developing Countries.
The World Bank Report, USA.
Xiao,H.and Proverbs,D.(2002).Construction time performance:an evaluation of contractors from
Japan,the UK and the US. Journal of engineering construction and architectural management, 9
(2), 81-89.
Xiao,H.and Proverbs,D.(2003).Factors influencing contractor performance:an international
investigation.Construction and Architectural Management,10(5),pp322-332.
18