Chapter One: Introduction
1.1 Background
The construction industry is a significant contributor to the economic growth and development of many countries. This is because it is linked to other industries in many ways and it provided the infrastructure that is required to operate other industries. Because of its impact on the general economy, its sustainable development is therefore, important (Durdyev and Ismail, 2016). Construction is always related to the political, economic, social and legal framework of a nation. It is difficult for construction to take place in a weak economy. It is also difficult for construction to thrive in the midst of political and social instability. Where construction is thriving, it can stimulate the growth of other sectors. It is therefore important to improve the efficiency of the construction industry in terms of cost and time efficiency.
Construction projects are however encountered by both challenges and opportunities. Inconsistency in the performance of construction projects, which results from cost and time performance, is posing a challenge to the construction industry (Durdyev, Omarov and Ismail, 2017). The identification and management of risk can be an elusive endeavor. When risks become reality they could cause disruption of a project and lead to unexpected higher costs. To avoid these pitfalls it is necessary to identify, control and monitor these risks (Jones, 2017).
Apart from cost and quality, time performance is considered as a very significant aspect of the lifecycle of the construction project and is a major determinant of the project’s success. Despite its evident significance most construction projects face delays in their schedules which makes it a widely acknowledged problem in the industry (Durdyev, Omarov and Ismail, 2017).
Delay in project management can be defined as when a project takes more time than is agreed on by the parties involved, through their contract (Assaf and Al-Hejji, 2006). In construction, delay sometimes occurs, leading to revenue loss to the owner because of the lack of production facilities or because of dependence on current facilities. It could also result in higher overhead costs, to the contractor, because of the increased length of time, which results in higher cost of material, because of inflation and increase in labor cost (Shahsavand, Marefat and Parchamijalal, 2018).
Projects are considered as being efficient when they are completed on time. However the process of construction is subject to many factors which are unpredictable and could result in delays. These factors could include performance factors, environmental factors, resources availability and relationship factors. For this reason it is rare that a project gets completed in the exact specified time (Shahsavand et al., 2018).
The completion of a project within the time agreed between the parties involved is a critical factor in the success of the project. Most projects, however, encounter delays in schedules which has become a major problem in construction projects all over the world (Durdyev et al., 2017). Delays in construction project completion time may result in additional cost which may result in stalling of projects and/or severe disputes between the parties involved.
The success of any construction projects depends on whether it is accomplished before project schedule and within the stipulated budget. The impact of delays affect time, cost, quality and safety which are key controlling features (Doloi et al., 2012). The main impacts of delays in the construction industry are time and cost overrun, disputes, adjudication and litigation (Gerdezi et al., 2014). Understanding the resons for delays is, therefore, crucial for ensuring the profitability of construction projects. Delay problems have been identified as factors that can affect the performance of a construction company and ultimately the economy of the whole country (Marzouk and Rasas, 2014).
One of the main aims of contractors in the construction industry is to increase their gain for the purpose of market growth. In order to realize this it is important for contractors to be aware and specific about the factors that influence the project’s success and be able to estimate the effects before they bid for the projects. Delay in a projects implies that the project will not be completed within the time agreed upon in the contract. The schedule of a construction project therefore plays a very important role in project management because of its influence on the success of the project (Abdullah et al., 2010).
Hong Kong has a rich and diverse heritage. Much of its historic fabric has been left intact over years of colonial rule as well as revolutionary wars. However Hong Kong has been accused of being notorious for putting economic and infrastructure development ahead to the preservation of heritage (Tsui and Yau, 2016). This economic and infrastructural boom led to very faint traces of Hong Kong’s historic fabric. Because of its limited space, historic buildings were found to stand in the way of great financial gain that was being promised by the high price of land. The weak heritage consciousness and laws that protect heritage buildings has led to almost complete erasure of Hong Kong’s physical memory of its past (Wong, 2013).
The people of Hong Kong have become more aware of their Heritage in Historic buildings. The Government of Hong Kong has launched the Revitalizing Historic Buildings through Partnership Scheme for the purpose of preservation of public buildings and promoting the participation of the public in conservation. The scheme encourages non-governmental Organizations to reuse government-owned buildings. These organizations are allowed to apply for the use of these buildings and to run social enterprises in these buildings (Commissioner for Heritage, 2017). The government of Hong Kong has approached conservation of privately owned buildings in various ways. This initiative is culturally, historical and architecturally valuable. The government declares a building as a monument after seeking for the owner’s consent. However this may vary from case to case. The government could also acquire property rights or compensate the owner for buildable area with other land for the purpose of preserving the building (Commissioner for Heritage, 2017).
The appreciation of heritage, in Hong Kong, has been increasing. The enactment of the Antiques and Monuments Ordinances in 1976 and the establishment of the office of Commissioner for Heritage provided a policy umbrella that promoted initiatives that acted as a point of contact. Since then the appreciation of heritage has been gaining momentum and people have begun showing willingness to preserve and revitalize these historic buildings (Tsui and Yau, 2016).
The HKSAR Government (HKSARG) has set up few parties for managing antiquities and monuments in Hong Kong. Parties include Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB), Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) and Commissioner for Heritage’s Office (CHO). One of the major responsibilities of AMO is assessing and evaluating HBs in order to provide information to AAB for grading of HBs (Antiquities and Monuments Office, 2017).
Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) is required to conduct for new capital works projects in the project planning stage (Antiquities and Monuments Office, 2017). HIA report provides information to projects on their impact of HBs or archeological significance. Therefore, during project planning, HIA is a critical item which may affect the development of HBs. HIA report will be used for analyzing its impact on the project performance.
Most of the revitalization efforts for historic buildings in Hong Kong is under the responsibility of the government. The concerted effort by the government not only to preserve historic buildings, but also to put them into proper use is encountered with numerous challenges. While the Revitalizing Historic Buildings Through Partnership scheme is offering a new lease of life for some old premises, revitalization projects are getting caught in between financial viability and heritage preservation (Tsui and Yau, 2016). The management of these schemes is continually finding itself caught in between sustainability and accountability. It is becoming increasingly important that revitalized projects get up and running by themselves, without relying on government subsidies.
1.2 Problem Statement
Conservation has received more attention from the public in the recent years, it gives influence to the government for making decision on heritage conservation policy (Yung & Chan, 2011). The Development Bureau (DB) has introduced Revitalization Scheme to the public, where government-owned historic buildings (HBs) will be preserved and re-used by non-profit-making organizations (NPOs). There are 5 batches of the scheme. From each batch, 4 to 7 HBs will be selected for revitalization purpose.
According to the progress of Batch I & II, works have completed. However, from Table 1.1, compare to the anticipated project commissioning time, a majority of the projects are delayed for more than 1 year.
Table 1.1 Summary of the Project Progress of Batch 1 & Batch 2 under Revitalization Scheme run by the DB. (Source: Revitalising Historic Buildings through Partnership Scheme (Commissioner for Heritage’s Office, 2017) & Progress on Batch I & Batch II of the Revitalisation Scheme (Commissioner for Heritage’s Office, 2018))
| Historic Building | Name of Project | Project Anticipated Commissioning Time | Project Actual Commissioning Time | ||
| Former North Kowloon Magistracy | Savannah College of Art and Design (Hong Kong) | Sep 2010 | Sep 2010 | ||
| Old Tai O Police Station | Tai O Heritage Hotel | Q1 2012 | Mar 2012 | ||
| Lui Seng Chun | Hong Kong Baptist University School of Chinese Medicine – Lui Seng Chun | Q2 2012 | Apr 2012 | ||
| Former Lai Chi Kok Hospital | Jao Tsung-I Academy | Q2 2012 | Feb 2014 | ||
| Fong Yuen Study Hall | The Yuen Yuen Institute “Fong Yuen Study Hall” Tourism and Chinese Cultural Centre cum Ma Wan Residents Museum | Q2 2012 | Mar 2013 | ||
| Mei Ho House | YHA Mei Ho House Youth Hostel | Q4 2012 | Oct 2013 | ||
| Old Tai Po Police Station | The Green Hub for Sustainable Living | Q1 2014 | Aug 2015 | ||
| Stone Houses | Stone Houses Family Garden | Q1 2014 | Oct 2015 | ||
| Blue House Cluster | Viva Blue House | Q4 2014 | May 2016 (Yellow House & Orange House)
Sep 2017 (Blue House) |
||
The delay of project commissioning time would increase the capital cost and affect operation of NPOs & social benefit.
Some of the important causes of delay are related to interference of the owner, performance of the contractor and planning and design of the project and inadequate financing. While most studies have investigated the causes of delays in construction project, revitalization schemes have unique characteristics that provide challenges that may not be similar to ordinary construction projects. This study therefore seeks to determine the major causes of delays in revitalization projects.
1.3 Objectives
The main objective of this study is to determine the causes of delay in revitalization projects in Hong Kong. The specific objectives are;
- To determine the effect of client factors on delay in revitalization projects in Hong Kong.
- To find out how contractor factors influences delay in revitalization projects in Hong Kong.
- To examine the effect of consultant factors on delay in revitalization projects in Hong Kong.
1.4 Significance of the study
With the modernization of the society and the increased importance placed on the financial viability of construction projects over their historical heritage, the revitalization of historical buildings has been facing numerous challenges. One of the most notable challenges has been the delay in commissioning of the projects which has been found to result in economic losses due to increased overhead costs and delay in the delivery of social benefits of the projects. It is therefore important to determine some of the factors that contribute to delays in commissioning of revitalization projects for the purpose of enabling the revitalization to deliver maximum benefits and ensure sustainability.
This study is therefore important to policy makers and government agencies involved in the revitalization of heritage buildings as it will provide recommendations and useful insight into the causes of delays in commissioning of these projects. More insight into these causes will provide better performance of the projects and in both time and cost saving.
This study will also be of importance to the residents of Hong Kong who will benefit from the implementation of the recommendations as they will lead to better delivery of revitalization projects. Since the residents, being taxpayers, are the major financiers of these projects, better project delivery will ensure better use of their taxes. The residents will also benefit from better preservation of their heritage and physical history which will be made available for posterity.
The study will also be of importance to researchers and scholars in the field of study as they will benefit from the information provided and the insight gained as it will enable them make further progress in their study. They will also benefit from the research gaps as they will provide field for further study.
Chapter Two: Literature Review
2.1 Theoretical Review
This study is underpinned by four distinct theories that help to explain the arguments of the researcher. These are Organizational Theory, Resource-based theory, financial distress theory and agency theory.
2.1.1 Organizational Theory
This theory focuses on the social organizations and the relationships they have with the environment in which they exist (Daft, 2008). This theory evolved for the purpose of achieving effectiveness in industries and gives rationality to bureaucracy. According to the theory the process of making decisions involves a number of steps when making choices. According to Shukla (2008) the process of making decisions is an opportunity to change the decision itself.
Organizations are made up of working units within the organization. Each of these units has a defined product. Because of the dependence of each of these groups to produce a common output it becomes difficult for organizations to produce accelerated change and deal with immediate demands (Zetterquist et al., 2011). For this reason, the decision-making process in organizations requires time and resources for it to result in solutions that add value to the organization.
Delays are therefore inevitable because making sense out of organizations is difficult and demands the use of various perspectives and wide knowledge to be able to incorporate a wide range of decisions and plans without delaying operations.
2.1.2 Agency Theory
This theory focuses on contractual conflicts. Conflict of interest between partners who are in contract arises because of different interests. These con flicts may arise when either one or both of the contracting partners engage in actions or behavior that is against the interest of the other. Agency theory, therefore describes the relationship between the agent (Contractor) and the principle (Client) where the agent is obligated to fulfill certain demands of the principle (Gossy, 2008). The relationship between the agent and the principle is based on explicit or implicit contract which describes the relationship between the two who are either seeking to be involved or are already involved in collaborative actions.
The success of every construction project relies majorly on god communication between the key players involved in the project. One of the key components of communication is the sharing of critical information between the project participants. One of the most common risks in projects, including construction projects, is poor communication (Ceric, 2003). It is often assumed that all the involved parties will cooperate and share relevant information for the purpose of achieving the goals of the project. However, in actual sense, projects participants usually have their own interests, which could be a potential source of conflict. This situation is usually referred to as the principal-agent problem, and refers to the situation where either one of the two players has better information than the other.
In construction projects, the project owner/ client is the principal while the contractor is the agent (Turner and Müller, 2004). In the principal-agent relationship, there is a delegation of tasks where the principal (Owner/ client) relies on the agent (Contractor/ manager) to carry out project tasks on behalf of the principal (Müller and Turner, 2005). One of the common assumptions is that the agent will try to gain as much benefit as possible, even if it causes mpore damage to the client (Scheig, 2008). The principal-agent theory contends that the principal-agent problem is characterized by various issues that characteristic of the principal-agent relationship. These issues include selection of areas of interest by agent, risk of moral hazard and agent holding up to the principal.
2.1.3 Financial Distress Theory
This theory focuses on the different factors that may lead to a decline in the performance of a firm (Brigham and Ehrhardt, 2013). Financial distress occurs when an organization is unable to pay its financial obligations in time (Beaver et al., 2011). The assessment of the probability of an organization entering into distress is important as it determines the payout distribution of an investment. According to Finnerty (2013) since the financing of an organization and its investment decisions are separate and independent, it is important to assess the possibility of financial distress because overreliance on debt and equity may result in reduction of a firms leverage on cost.
2.1.4 Resource Based Theory
The resource based theory is aimed at understanding how firms can gain competitive advantage by applying the resources that are at their disposal (Kor and Mahooney, 2004). This theory focuses on strategies that can be used by a firm to gain and enhance its competitive advantage. Labor issues are critical to the success of firms. Planning for labor for a project is a complex task because having inappropriate skills for the tasks required of the project could have adverse consequences for the project’s outcome. The success of a project therefor requires having the ability to determine and source for the right skills that are required to perform the activities of the project (Kor and Mahooney, 2004).
The most important goal of strategy research is to establish why certain organizations are more effective and efficient in the way they handle their business when compared to others, in addition to understanding the mechanisms leading them to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage. The Resource-based View (RBV) is a strategic management theory that is widely used in project management, it examines how resources can drive competitive advantage. Competitive advantage is the ability to create more value than rivals, and therefore generate higher returns on investment. Sustainable competitive advantage requires enduring benefits through capabilities that are not easily imitated (Killen et al., 2012). The RBV is built on the concept that resources and capabilities are not heterogeneous across other organizations, and through the utilization of this concept the success rate variations between organizations can be explained. Kraaijenbrink et al (2010) quoted the argument of Barney (1991a, 1994, 2002) that “if a firm is to achieve a state of sustained competitive advantage, it must acquire and control valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable (VRIN) resources and capabilities.” PM resources and capabilities that have been customized to a specific environment and developed over time are not easily imitated. Such capabilities are constantly associated with better performance, leading to viewing PM as strategic organizational capabilities that can provide enduring benefits. Examples of tangible PM resources include methodologies and practices (know what), while intangible resources include tacit knowledge sharing process and facilitation (know how). Following the Resource-based View of the firm concept, the intangible resources are more likely to satisfy the requirement of being rare and inimitable (Killen et al., 2012).
2.2 Empirical Review
Literature review in this study was used to collect secondary information on the causes of delays in construction projects. Various studies have been conducted on the causes of construction projects in various types of construction. These studies have varied in their scope and methodology. Shahsavand et al., (2018) assessed the perceptions of consultants, contractors and clients in the causes of delay in the construction industry. They identified 78 causes of delays in the construction industry and categorized them into seven groups. These include causes due to clients, labor and equipment, contractor, materials, design, external causes and causes due to consultant.
Durdyev et al. (2017) identify attributes of delays in construction projects with a focus on residential buildings. The survey that was administered to contractors and consultants showed that the main causes of construction delays were shortage of material, unrealistic scheduling, late delivery of materials, shortage of labor, project complexity, absenteeism of personnel, delays in payment by owner, poor management, subcontractor delay and accidents.
Kikwasi (2012) assessed the causes of delays and disruptions in construction projects in Tanzania by obtaining the views of clients, consultants, contractors and regulatory boards. The main causes of delays were found to be changes in design, delays in payment to contractors, delay in providing information, problems with project funding, poor management, compensation issues and disagreements.
Mohammed and Isah (2012) investigated the causes of delay in the Nigerian constgruction industry. Data collected from clients, contractors and consultants revealed that improper planning, lack of communication, design errors and shortage of supply were the highest ranking causes of delay in the Nigerian construction projects.
Owolabi et al., (2014) investigated the cause and effect of delay on construction delivery time on a sample of 93 professionals from Nigeria. The questionnaire survey revealed that among the main causes of delay in building construction industry in Nigeria are lack of funds to finance the project to completion, changes in drawings, lack of effective communication among the parties involved , lack of adequate information from consultants, slow decision making and contractor’s insolvency, variations, project management problem, mistake and discrepancies in contract document, equipment availability and failure, mistakes during construction, bad weather, fluctuation in prices of building materials, inappropriate overall organizational structure linking to the project and labour.
Cülfik, Sarıkaya and Altun (2014) Sought to identify the most important causes of delay in construction projects in Turkey. The survey collected the views of owners, contractors and consultants using a questionnaire targeted at 151 respondents. Using the relative importance index method the survey found that each of the categories of respondents ranked the causes of delays in terms of importance differently. However the overall results indicated that the owner suspending the project, delays by owner to pay contractors progress and unrealistic duration of project were the most common causes of delay that were identified by all the three groups.
Marzouk and El-Rasas (2014) Sought to identify the top ten most important causes of delay in construction projects in Egypt. The questionnaire survey conducted among thirty-three owners, contractors and consultants applied the importance index method by calculating the frequency index, severity index and importance index. The findings showed that owner related causes were conferred the highest priority followed by contractor relate causes with material related causes having the least priority.
Islam et al. (2015) investigated the main causes of delay in the construction of large buildings in Bangladesh. The questionnaire survey conducted among owners, contractors and consultants found that the ten most important causes included manager’s lack of experience, selection of bidders, shortage of funding, poor management, poor planning and scheduling, lack of skilled labor, site factors, cash-flow problems, escalation of price of resources and excessive contractor’s workload.
Durdyev and Hosseini (2018) provide a systemic review of studies conducted between 1985 and 2018 on delays in construction projects. They find that the greatest contribution has been research from developing countries. 149 causes of delays were identified from 97 studies among which were weather conditions, poor communication, poor coordination, conflict between stakeholders, poor planning, lack of experience, shortage of workers and poor management.
Zidane and Andersen (2018) sought to identify the major universal delay factors in construction projects in Norwegian construction projects. The literature review revealed that the top ten delay factors were change of design during construction, delays in payment, poor planning, poor management, improper design, inadequate experience of contractors, contractor financial difficulties, Client financial difficulties, shortage of resources, poor productivity and shortage of skills.
Venkatesh and Venkatesan (2017) identified the critical causes of delay in construction projects. Fifty three research articles on causes of construction delays in different countries were reviewed. The findings revealed that causes of delays in construction varied from country to country. This study therefore sought to determine the causes of construction delays in Hong Kong.
Chan and Kamaraswamy (1997) undertook a survey aimed at determining the significant factors that caused delays in construction projects in Hong Kong. The study conducted among clients, consultants and contractors in various types of projects identified 83 delay factors and categorized them into eight major categories. The five main causes of delays that were identified include poor management, unforeseen physical conditions, delayed decision making, variations initiated by clients and work variations. It was also observed that the causes of delays varied between countries.
Based on the literature reviewed it is evident that several studies have identified important causes of delays in the construction projects of other countries (Islam et al., 2015; Kikwasi, 2012; Durdyev et al., 2017, Shahsavand et al, 2018; Durdyev and Hosseini, 2018). However Venkatesh and Venkatesan (2017) identifies that the causes in delay in construction project vary from country to country. Shah (2016) Explored the causes of delays in construction projects in Australia, Malaysia and Ghana for the purpose of comparing analysis of delay factors and explaining why there are different delay factors with different priorities from one country to another. The study found that there are diverse groups of delay factors from one country to another.
One study identified causes of construction project delays in Hong Kong (Chan and Kamaraswamy, 1997). However the research findings in these study are based on projects rather than revitalization projects and may therefore not be applicable to this research in terms of scope and nature. This is because the regulatory, legislative and project specific issues may vary from one project type to the other. This study therefore seeks to fill this research gap by determining the causes of delays in revitalization projects in Hong Kong. By doing this it will provide the most effective solution to construction stakeholders for the most effective results.
Chapter Three: Methodology
3.1 Research Design
This study adopted a cross-sectional research design. This allowed for data to be collected from a sample at a single point in time and generalized across the population being studied in order to explain the phenomenon in question. The study also used quantitative methods which enabled objective measurement and statistical analysis.
3.2 Research Population
The population under study included government officials in charge of revitalization schemes, contractors and consultants in revitalization schemes. Government officers in charge of revitalization projects included officials from Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) and Commissioner for Heritage’s Office (CHO). Consultants and contractors were from each of the seven revitalization scheme project of Phase I and II that had been completed.
3.3 Sampling
Simple random sampling was conducted to select a sample from each of the groups of population. Six officials were selected from each of the government offices in charge of revitalization projects while three contractors and three consultants were selected from each of the seven revitalization scheme projects of Phase I and II that had been completed. The sampling frame is as shown in Table 3.1
Table 3. 1 Sampling Frame
| Category | Sample Size |
| Government Officials | 18 |
| Consultants | 21 |
| Contractors | 21 |
| Total | 60 |
3.4 Data Collection Method
Questionnaire survey method was used to investigate the causes of delays in revitalization projects in Hong Kong. A number of articles were reviewed on the causes of delays in construction projects. Based on this review, a questionnaire was developed for the purpose of this study. Information on causes of delays was collected from a sample of government officials in the revitalization schemes, contractors and consultants in the revitalization projects.
The questionnaire survey approach was chosen because it allowed the researcher to collect information from a fairly large number of people in as short time as possible. It also allowed the respondents to take their time to think about the questions and answer them latter. In addition the respondents were free to answer the questions freely without worrying about the reaction of the researcher.
43 most relevant causes of delays in construction projects were identified from the literature review and the questionnaire was designed consisting of the 43 factors. These factors were then categorized into seven categories, i.e. owner related, consultant related, contractor related, construction materials related, construction labor/ equipment related, project related and external causes. Table 3.2 shows that causes of delays in construction projects and how they were grouped.
Table 3. 2 Causes of Delay
| Group | Causes |
| 1. Delay related to Owner | i. Poor decision makig |
| ii. Work suspension | |
| iii. Late revision/approval of design documents by owner | |
| iv. Late furnishing of site | |
| v. Delay in payment of completed work | |
| vi. Change of scope during construction | |
| vii. Lowest bidder | |
| viii. Unrealistic duration of contract | |
| ix. Ineffective penalties for delays | |
| x. Interference by owner | |
| 2. Delay related to consultant | i. Lack of experience (Consultant) |
| ii. Delay in design approval | |
| iii. Inappropriate design | |
| iv. Unclear details in design | |
| v. Quality control | |
| 3. Delay related to contractor | i. Cash flow difficulties (Contractor) |
| ii. Poor management | |
| iii. Poor planning/ scheduling | |
| iv. Construction errors | |
| v. Sub-contractor delays | |
| vi. Lack of experience | |
| vii. Delay in mobilization of site personnel | |
| viii. Delay in providing drawings and samples of materials | |
| 4. Delay related to material | i. Shortage of materials in the market |
| ii. Delivery problems | |
| iii. Changes in material specifications during construction | |
| 5. Delay related to labor and equipment | i. Labor shortage |
| ii. Lack of skilled labor | |
| iii. Low productivity | |
| iv. Unavailability/ failure of equipment | |
| 6. Delay related to project | i. Poor surface conditions |
| ii. Site traffic/ movement restrictions | |
| iii. Site utilities restrictions/ delays (Water, electricity etc) | |
| iv. Accidents | |
| v. Activities adjacent to site/ neighbors’ interference | |
| 7. External causes | i. Poor weather |
| ii. Poor environment | |
| iii. Regulations and laws | |
| iv. Government bureaucracy | |
| v. Delay in inspection and certification | |
| vi. Poor communication | |
| vii. Inflation | |
| viii. Political/ social unrest |
3.5 Data Analysis
The Importance Index Technique was used to analyze data collected for this study. In this technique each of the respondents was required to rate whether each of the factors contributed to delays in revitalization projects in terms of frequency and severity based on a scale of 1 to 5; (1- never, 2- rare, 3- sometimes, 4- often, 5- always) for frequency and (1- very low, 2- Low, 3- medium, 4- great, 5- extreme) for severity.
Data was analyzed by first ranking the causes of delay in revitalization projects by frequency and severity indices using the equations by Islam et al., (2017) in a survey on causes of construction project delays in Bangladesh. According to Islam et al., (2017) The Frequency Index (FI) and Severity Index (SI) for each delay factor are calculated using the equation
FI
Where
a= weight (1,2,3,4,5)
n= number of respondents
N= Total number of responses
Each factor was then ranked according to its frequency index and severity index as in table 3.3
Table 3. 3 Frequency and Severity ranking
| Index (%) | Frequency | Severity |
| <20 | Never | Very low |
| 20 – 40 | Rare | Low |
| 40 – 60 | Sometimes | Medium |
| 60 – 80 | Often | Great |
| 80 – 100 | Always | Extreme |
Having calculated the frequency index and severity index the importance index was calculate as a function of both frequency and severity index using the function
(Importance Index)
Further analysis was conducted using statistics package for Social Scientists (SPSS). The Median and range of numerical data was used for the purpose of comparing between the groups (Government officials, contractors and consultants). A Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted for the purpose of testing the difference of responses among the three groups. This is a non-parametric test that is preferred in this case because it does not require the assumption of the data being normally distributed or the variance being homogenous. Confidence values of 95% were adopted.
Chapter Four: Findings
4.1 Response Rate
This study sought to determine the causes of delays in revitalization projects in Hong Kong. Out of a targeted 60 respondents 57 were able to complete the questionnaires and return them to the researcher. This gives a response rate of 95% which was considered sufficient for the research.
4.2 Background Characteristics
The researcher then sought to find out the background characteristics of the respondents. The researcher began by determining the gender of the respondents and the findings were as shown in table 4.1
Table 4. 1 Gender of Respondents
| Category | Male | Female | Total |
| Government Officials | 13 (22.8%) | 3 (5.3%) | 16 (28.1%) |
| Contractors | 15 (26.3%) | 6 (10.5%) | 21 (36.8%) |
| Consultants | 14 (24.6%) | 6 (10.5%) | 20 (35.1%) |
| Total | 42 (73.7%) | 15 (26.3%) | 57 (100%) |
From table 4.1 it can be seen that majority of respondents in all the categories were male with a total of 42 (73.7%) and 26.3% (n= 15) female. This is an indication that the construction industry is male dominated.
The researcher further sought to find out the years of experience of the respondents. Table 4.2 shows the respondent’s years of experience.
Table 4. 2 Years of Experience
| Category | Over 10 Years | 6 to 10 Years | 1 to 5 years | Less than 1 year | Total |
| Government Officials | 2 (3.5%) | 3 (5.3%) | 6 (10.5%) | 5 (8.8%) | 16 (28.1%) |
| Contractors | 8 (14%) | 9(15.7%) | 4 (7%) | 0 (0%) | 21 (36.8%) |
| Consultants | 7 (12.3%) | 8 (14%) | 3 (5.3%) | 2 (3.5%) | 20 (35.1%) |
| Total | 17 (29.8%) | 17 (29.8%) | 13 (22.8%) | 10 (17.5%) | 57 (100%) |
From table 4.2 it can be seen that contractors and consultants had more experience than government officials while contractors had the most experience among the three groups.
4.3 Causes of Delays by Frequency Index
Having determined the background characteristics of the respondents the researcher went ahead to find out the respondents opinion on the causes of delays in revitalization projects. 43 factors were considered and their frequency index was calculated based on the formula presented in the methodology section. Table 4.3 presents the top ten causes of delays in terms of the frequency index.
Table 4. 3 Top ten causes of delays by frequency index
| Group (Delay related to) | Cause | FI |
| Owner | Lowest Bidder | 69.23 |
| Contractor | Poor planning/ scheduling | 68.56 |
| Owner | Change of scope during construction | 68.31 |
| Owner | Late revision/approval of design documents by owner | 66.54 |
| Owner | Delay in payment of completed work | 64.35 |
| Contractor | Poor management (Contractor) | 63.21 |
| Labor and equipment | Low productivity | 61.47 |
| Contractor | Cash flow difficulties (Contractor) | 60.52 |
| Project | Poor surface conditions | 59.02 |
| Owner | Poor decision making | 58.99 |
From table 4.3 it can be observed that delays caused by the owner seeking the lowest bidder are the most frequent. In addition majority of the top ten causes of delays according to the frequency index are related to the owner. At the same time the top ten causes of delays according to the frequency index are neither related to consultants, materials nor external causes. The top ten causes according to the frequency index are lowest bidder, poor planning/ scheduling, change of scope during construction, late revision/ approval of design documents by owner, delay in payment of completed work, poor management (contractor), low productivity, cash flow difficulties (contractor), poor surface conditions and poor decision making (Owner).
4.4 Causes of delays by severity index
Having identified the causes of delays by frequency index the researcher went ahead to find out the causes of delays by severity index. Table 4.4 shows the top ten causes of delays by their severity index.
Table 4. 4 Causes of delays by severity index
| Group (Delay related to) | Cause | SI |
| Material | Shortage of materials in the market | 96.25 |
| External causes | Inflation | 95.34 |
| Owner | Delay in payment of completed work | 94.21 |
| Project | Poor surface conditions | 91.25 |
| Labor and Equipment | Labor shortage | 90.35 |
| Consultant | Lack of experience (Consultant) | 90.33 |
| Contractor | Cash flow difficulties (Contractor) | 89.95 |
| Labor and Equipment | Low productivity | 88.85 |
| Labor and Equipment | Lack of skilled labor | 88.32 |
| Owner | Change of scope during construction | 88.04 |
Table 4.4 shows that shortage of materials in the market is the most severe cause of delays in revitalization projects. At the same time majority of the top ten causes of delays according to severity are related to labor and equipment. The top ten causes of delays according to severity are shortage of materials in the market, inflation, delay in payment of completed work, poor surface conditions, labor shortage, lack of experience (Contractor), cash flow difficulties (contractor), low productivity, lack of skilled labor and change of scope during construction. It was interesting to note that delay in payment of completed work, poor surface conditions, cash flow difficulties (contractors) and change of scope during construction were among the top ten causes both in terms of frequency and severity.
4.5 Causes of Delay by Importance index
Having ranked the causes of delays by their frequency and severity indices it was considered necessary to rank them by their importance index. Table 4.5 shows the top ten causes of delays by their importance index.
Table 4. 5 Causes of Delays by Importance Index
| Group (Delay related to) | Cause | IMPI |
| Owner | Delay in payment of completed work | 59.36 |
| Owner | Change of scope during construction | 58.96 |
| Project | Poor surface conditions | 58.62 |
| Labor and Equipment | Low productivity | 57.26 |
| Contractor | Poor planning/ scheduling | 56.45 |
| Contractor | Cash flow difficulties (Contractor) | 54.25 |
| Owner | Lowest bidder | 53.92 |
| Material | Shortage of materials in the market | 52.68 |
| Owner | Late revision/approval of design documents by owner | 52.21 |
| Labor and equipment | Lack of skilled labor | 50.48 |
From table 4.5 it can be observed that delays caused by the owner delaying in payment of completed work are the most important. In addition majority of the top ten causes of delays according to the importance index are related to the owner. At the same time the top ten causes of delays according to the frequency index are neither related to consultants nor external causes. The top ten causes according to the frequency index are delay in payment of completed work, change of scope during construction, poor surface conditions, low productivity, poor planning/scheduling, cash flow difficulties (contractor), lowest bidder, and shortage of materials in the market, late revision/approval of design documents by owner and lack of skilled labor.
4.6 Comparison between Groups of Respondents Opinion
Having determined the top ten causes of delays by Frequency, severity and importance indices it was considered important to determine whether there were differences in opinions among the opinions of government officials, contractors and consultants. To achieve this a Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted considering a P-value<0.05 to be significant. Table 4.6 shows the median of frequency indices for causes of delays according to each group.
Table 4. 6 Comparison of Frequency of causes of delay between groups
| Causes Group (Delay related to) | Gov’t Officials | Contractors | Consultants | P value |
| Owner | 22 | 22 | 23 | 0.364 |
| Consultant | 7* | 6* | 9** | 0.054 |
| Contractor | 19* | 16* | 14** | 0.068 |
| Material | 6 | 5 | 7 | 0.846 |
| Labor and equipment | 9 | 7 | 9 | 0.462 |
| Project | 10 | 9 | 10 | 0.842 |
| External causes | 12 | 11 | 12 | 0.762 |
| Total | 85 | 86 | 84 | 0.866 |
| Notes: The respondents group with ** is significantly different from the other two with * | ||||
Table 4.6 shows the median of frequency of causes of delay for each group as well as the p values which indicate that there is a significant difference between the opinions of the groups for P<0.05. From the table it can be seen that there is no difference in the opinions of the three groups (Government officials, Contractors and consultants) for each group of causes. This indicates that there is generally a good correlation between the three groups with respect to the causes of delay.
Table 4. 7 Comparison of Severity of causes of delay between groups
| Causes Group (Delay related to) | Gov’t Officials | Contractors | Consultants | P value |
| Owner | 27* | 27* | 37** | 0.264 |
| Consultant | 12 | 11 | 14 | 0.234 |
| Contractor | 21 | 24 | 22 | 0.128 |
| Material | 6** | 9 | 8* | 0.316 |
| Labor and equipment | 13 | 14 | 10 | 0.429 |
| Project | 13 | 16 | 15 | 0.562 |
| External causes | 19* | 18* | 23** | 0.763 |
| Total | 111 | 119 | 129 | 0.516 |
| Notes: The respondents group with ** is significantly different from the other two with * | ||||
Table 4.7 shows the median of severity of causes of delay for each group as well as the p values which indicate that there is a significant difference between the opinions of the groups for P<0.05. From the table it can be seen that there is no difference in the opinions of the three groups (Government officials, Contractors and consultants) for each group of causes. This indicates that there is generally a good correlation between the three groups with respect to the causes of delay.
4.7 Prioritization of causes of delay
The study further went ahead to classify the causes of delay groups according to their importance with the categories very low (VL), Low (L), Medium (M), High (H) and Very High (VH). Table 4.8 shows the median and degree of frequency and severity indices.
Table 4. 8 Degree of Frequency and Severity
| Causes Group | Frequency | Severity | |||
| Median | % | Median | % | ||
| Owner | 27 | VH | 29.35 | VH | |
| Consultant | 8.29 | L | 9.56 | L | |
| Contractor | 14.33 | H | 15.38 | H | |
| Material | 3.24 | VL | 4.82 | VL | |
| Labor and equipment | 8.92 | L | 7.54 | L | |
| Project | 9.77 | L | 8.29 | L | |
| External causes | 11.29 | M | 12.58 | M | |
| Total | 82.84 | 87.52 | |||
Table 4.8 shows that the scores for frequency are in line with those for severity where causes of delays related to owners have a very high degree of importance, causes of delays related to contractors have a high degree of importance, causes od delay related to external causes have medium degree of importance while causes of delays related to consultants, labor and equipment and project have low degree of importance. Causes of delay related to material have very low degree of importance.