Chapter 4 Data Analysis

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULT ANALYSIS
4.1. INTRODUCTION
The data analysis and result analysis of the topic has been shown below. The implementation of data has
been done using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). In this chapter a discussion is done of
the collected data which is gathered using a structured questionnaire.
4.2. DATA COLLECTION
For the study of the causes of change orders in construction projects which are being conducted in Oman
an analysis has been presented. The data for the analysis has been gathered through using a structured
questionnaire. This is done by collecting responses of 169 respondents which have been classified in the
percentage form. The frequency of the data has been used for extracting the percentage of responses
which shall be represented and elaborated.
4.3. RESULTS ANALYSIS
The purpose of this research is to develop an understanding of the topic and relevant literature which has
been discussed in the literature review of tis research. The structure of the analysis initially comprises the
general information of the participants which show the characteristics of the population of data. On the
basis of this causes of variation attributes associated with the data have been discussed which shows
relation to the clients, relation to the consultants, relation to the contractors and other associated changes
have been discussed. The effects of variations are also discussed through the data and associated
questions.
4.3.1. GENERAL INFORMATION OF THE PARTICIPANTS
In this section of the research general information of the participants are discussed and elaborated. The
below mentioned details shows the details of the respondents as per their positions which is bifurcated as
client, project manager, contractors, quality surveyors and consultants.
TABLE (4-1): RESPONDENTS AS PER POSITION
Position
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Client 14 8.3 14.0 14.0
Project Manager 19 11.2 19.0 33.0
Contractors 28 16.6 28.0 61.0
Quantity Surveyor 18 10.7 18.0 79.0
Consultant 21 12.4 21.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Missing System 69 40.8
Total 169 100.0
The representation of the pie chart shows that from the data which has been gathered 14% individuals are
Clients, 19% individuals are Project Managers, 28% individuals are Contractors, 18% individual are
Quality Surveyors and 21% individuals are Consultants.
FIGURE (4-1): PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS AS PER POSITION

The details which are shown below classify the experience level of the respondents. The frequency of
respondents is classified from 0 – 5 years, 6-10 years, 11 – 15 years and individuals who have an
experience of more than 15 years.
TABLE (4-2): RESPONDENTS AS PER EXPERIENCE
Experience
Cumulative
Valid 0 - 5 years 22 13.0 22.0 22.0

6 - 10 years 24 14.2 24.0 46.0
11 - 15 years 30 17.8 30.0 76.0
> 15 years 24 14.2 24.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
The pie chart which is shown below shows percentage classification of the respondents. The respondents
which have an experience of 0 – 5 years are 22%, 6 - 10 years are 24%, 11 -15 years are 30% and the
experience of more than 15 years individuals are 24%.
FIGURE (4-2): PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS AS PER EXPERIENCE

The data which is represented in the table below shows details of the academic degrees of the
respondents. The details of the information which is shown below is classified as Bachelors, Masters and
Ph.D. All the respondents’ response has been classified separately so that the effectiveness of the
responses can be measure for further analysis.
TABLE (4-3): RESPONDENTS AS PER ACADEMIC DEGREE HELD
Academic Degree Held
Cumulative
Valid Bachelor 32 18.9 32.0 32.0
Masters 37 21.9 37.0 69.0

Ph.D 31 18.3 31.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
In the pie chart which has been shown below the qualification details of the respondents have been
classified as percentage. The details of the data clearly shows that percentage of the respondents which
are Bachelors is 32%, Masters is 37% and Ph.D. is 31%. This classifies the quality of the responses which
have been gathered and creates an understanding of the accuracy of the data which has been gathered and
the academic degree which is held by the respondents.
FIGURE (4-3): PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS AS PER ACADEMIC DEGREE HELD

In the table below the total respondents have been classified as per the types of organization in which they
work. In order to keep the classification simple the data has only been classified into the public and
private sector. More detailed analysis of this question was not required as per the requirement of the topic.
TABLE (4-4): RESPONDENTS AS PER TYPE OF ORGANIZATION
Type of Organization
Cumulative
Valid Public 50 29.6 50.0 50.0
Private 50 29.6 50.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
In the pie chart which has been shown below the type of organization in which the respondents work have
been classified. The percentage of respondents which work in the private sector are 50% and the
percentage of respondents which work in the public sector are 50%.
FIGURE (4-4): PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS AS PER TYPE OF ORGANIZATION

All the details which have been discussed above classify the respondents as per the requirement of the
topic which is relevant to the topic.
4.3.2. ANALYSIS OF OVERALL RESULTS
In the analysis which shall be further presented the data has been classified in the forms of indicators. The
details of the segment show the classification of the responses using the Likert scale in which the
responses are never, rarely, occasionally, often and always. This has been further evaluated through
classification as the causes and effects of variation. For the purpose of analysis several questions have
been asked to the respondents on the basis of which the survey has been done.
4.3.3. CAUSES OF VARIATION
In this section of the analysis the questions associated with the causes of variation in the of change orders
in the construction projects which are being done in Oman have been discussed. For the purpose of
analysis several questions have been formulated in various segments which shall be elaborately discussed
below.
4.3.3.1. RELATED TO CLIENTS

In this portion of analysis classification has been done of data of responses which relate to the clients. The
data has been structured statistically based on the responses and has been classified as percentage. The
detailed explanation and classification of percentage of responses shall be seen below in detail.
TABLE (4-5): RESPONDENTS AS PER RELATED TO CLIENTS
Related to Clients
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1.53 1 .6 1.0 1.0
1.67 1 .6 1.0 2.0
1.80 1 .6 1.0 3.0
1.93 1 .6 1.0 4.0
2.07 1 .6 1.0 5.0
2.20 1 .6 1.0 6.0
2.33 1 .6 1.0 7.0
2.40 1 .6 1.0 8.0
2.47 1 .6 1.0 9.0
2.53 2 1.2 2.0 11.0

2.80 1 .6 1.0 12.0
3.20 1 .6 1.0 13.0
3.27 1 .6 1.0 14.0
3.33 1 .6 1.0 15.0
3.40 1 .6 1.0 16.0
3.47 5 3.0 5.0 21.0
3.53 1 .6 1.0 22.0
3.60 1 .6 1.0 23.0
3.67 3 1.8 3.0 26.0
3.73 4 2.4 4.0 30.0
3.80 4 2.4 4.0 34.0
3.87 2 1.2 2.0 36.0
3.93 2 1.2 2.0 38.0
4.00 8 4.7 8.0 46.0

4.07 5 3.0 5.0 51.0
4.13 7 4.1 7.0 58.0
4.20 6 3.6 6.0 64.0
4.27 6 3.6 6.0 70.0
4.33 7 4.1 7.0 77.0
4.40 5 3.0 5.0 82.0
4.47 3 1.8 3.0 85.0
4.53 6 3.6 6.0 91.0
4.60 4 2.4 4.0 95.0
4.67 1 .6 1.0 96.0
4.73 1 .6 1.0 97.0
4.80 1 .6 1.0 98.0
4.87 1 .6 1.0 99.0
4.93 1 .6 1.0 100.0

Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
In the table which has been shown below the change of the scope by the client has been discussed. The
respondents replied as never 4%, rarely 9%, occasionally 16%, often 38% and always 33%. Majority of
the respondents went with often and always in responding to change of scope by the client.
TABLE (4-6): RESPONDENTS AS PER CHANGE OF SCOPE BY THE CLIENT
Change of scope by the client
Valid Never 4 2.4 4.0 4.0
Rarely 9 5.3 9.0 13.0
Occasionally 16 9.5 16.0 29.0
Often 38 22.5 38.0 67.0
Always 33 19.5 33.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0

Total 169 100.0
In the table which has been shown below the clients change of project schedule has been discussed. The
the respondents went with often and always in responding to change of client’s change of project
schedule.
TABLE (4-7): RESPONDENTS AS PER CLIENT’S CHANGE OF PROJECT SCHEDULE
Client’s Change of project schedule
Valid Never 1 .6 1.0 1.0
Rarely 5 3.0 5.0 6.0
Often 44 26.0 44.0 66.0
Always 34 20.1 34.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0

In the table which has been shown below the client’s financial problems has been discussed. The
respondents replied as never 1%, rarely 6%, occasionally 19%, often 32% and always 42%.
Majority of the respondents went with often and always in responding to client’s financial problems.
TABLE (4-8): RESPONDENTS AS PER CLIENT’S FINANCIAL PROBLEMS
Client’s financial problems
Rarely 6 3.6 6.0 7.0
Often 32 18.9 32.0 58.0
Always 42 24.9 42.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
In the table which has been shown below the inadequate project objectives set by the client has been
discussed. The respondents replied as never 0%, rarely 6%, occasionally 21%, often 31% and always
42%. Majority of the respondents went with occasionally, often and always in responding to inadequate
project objectives set by the client.
TABLE (4-9): RESPONDENTS AS PER INADEQUATE PROJECT OBJECTIVES SET BY THE
CLIENT
Inadequate project objectives set by the client
Valid Rarely 6 3.6 6.0 6.0
Often 31 18.3 31.0 58.0
Always 42 24.9 42.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
In the table which has been shown below the client’s replacement of material has been discussed. The
the respondents went with occasionally, often and always in responding to client’s replacement of
material.
TABLE (4-10): RESPONDENTS AS PER CLIENT’S REPLACEMENT OF MATERIALS
Client’s Replacement of materials

Rarely 7 4.1 7.0 8.0
Often 35 20.7 35.0 62.0
Always 38 22.5 38.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
In the table which has been shown below the change inspecification by the client has been discussed. The
the respondents went with often and always in responding to change in specifications by the client.
TABLE (4-11): RESPONDENTS AS PER CHANGE IN SPECIFICATIONS BY THE CLIENT
Change in specifications by the client

Rarely 9 5.3 9.0 14.0
Often 37 21.9 37.0 62.0
Always 38 22.5 38.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
In the table which has been shown below the client instructs modification to design has been discussed.
The respondents replied as never 2%, rarely 4%, occasionally 15%, often 28% and always 51%. Majority
of the respondents went with always in responding to client instructs modification to design.
TABLE (4-12): RESPONDENTS AS PER CLIENT INSTRUCTS MODIFICATION TO DESIGN
Client instructs modification to design
Rarely 4 2.4 4.0 6.0

Often 28 16.6 28.0 49.0
Always 51 30.2 51.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
In the table which has been shown below the financial constraints faced by the client has been discussed.
of the respondents went with often and always in responding to financial constraints faced by the client.
TABLE (4-13): RESPONDENTS AS PER FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS FACED BY THE

CLIENT
Financial constraints faced by the client
Rarely 4 2.4 4.0 5.0
Often 33 19.5 33.0 54.0

Always 46 27.2 46.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
In the table which has been shown below the insufficient coordination among the parties by the client has
been discussed. The respondents replied as never 2%, rarely 9%, occasionally 18%, often 25% and
always 46%. Majority of the respondents went with always in responding to insufficient coordination
among the parties by the client.
TABLE (4-14): RESPONDENTS AS PER INSUFFICIENT COORDINATION AMONG THE

PARTIES BY THE CLIENT
Insufficient coordination among the parties by the client
Rarely 9 5.3 9.0 11.0
Often 25 14.8 25.0 54.0
Always 46 27.2 46.0 100.0

Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
In the table which has been shown below the weak client’s decision making process has been discussed.
of the respondents went with often in responding to weak client’s decision making process.
TABLE (4-15): RESPONDENTS AS PER WEAK CLIENT’S DECISION MAKING PROCESS
Weak client’s decision making process
Rarely 8 4.7 8.0 13.0
Often 42 24.9 42.0 73.0
Always 27 16.0 27.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0

Total 169 100.0
In the table which has been shown below the change in design by the client has been discussed. The
Majority of the respondents went with rarely and often in responding to change in design by the client.
This shows a varying perspective in situation.
TABLE (4-16): RESPONDENTS AS PER CHANGE IN DESIGN BY THE CLIENT
Change in design by the client
Rarely 27 16.0 27.0 36.0
Often 32 18.9 32.0 85.0
Always 15 8.9 15.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0

In the table which has been shown below client’s lack of strategic planning has been discussed. The
Majority of the respondents went with often and always in responding to client’s lack of strategic
planning.
TABLE (4-17): RESPONDENTS AS PER CLIENT’S LACK OF STRATEGIC PLANNING
Client’s lack of strategic planning
Rarely 5 3.0 5.0 14.0
Often 32 18.9 32.0 60.0
Always 40 23.7 40.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
In the table which has been shown below poor procurement process by the client has been discussed. The
the respondents went with occasionally, often and always in responding to poor procurement process by
the client.
TABLE (4-18): RESPONDENTS AS PER POOR PROCUREMENT PROCESS BY CLIENT
Poor procurement process by Client
Often 31 18.3 31.0 58.0
Always 42 24.9 42.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
The respondents replied as never 9%, rarely 27%, occasionally 17%, often 32% and always 15%.
Majority of the respondents went with occasionally, often and always in responding to change of plans by
the client.
Table (4-19): Respondents as per Change of plans by the client
Change of plans by the client

Rarely 27 16.0 27.0 36.0
Often 32 18.9 32.0 85.0
Always 15 8.9 15.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
Majority of the respondents went with often and always in responding to conflict between client and
contract documents.
TABLE (4-20): RESPONDENTS AS PER CONFLICTS BETWEEN CLIENT & CONTRACT

DOCUMENTS
Conflicts between client & contract documents

Rarely 28 16.6 28.0 31.0
Often 19 11.2 19.0 62.0
Always 38 22.5 38.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
The responses show that most of the time the change of planning is done due to the clients and this results
in variation of the plans when the details are related to the clients.
4.3.3.2. RELATED TO CONSULTANTS
In this portion of analysis classification has been done of data of responses which relate to the consultants.
The data has been structured statistically based on the responses and has been classified as percentage.
The detailed explanation and classification of percentage of responses shall be seen below in detail.
TABLE (4-21): RESPONDENTS AS PER RELATED TO CONSULTANTS
Related to Consultants

Valid 1.53 1 .6 1.0 1.0
1.67 2 1.2 2.0 3.0
1.73 3 1.8 3.0 6.0
1.93 1 .6 1.0 7.0
2.20 1 .6 1.0 8.0
2.40 1 .6 1.0 9.0
2.53 1 .6 1.0 10.0
2.60 1 .6 1.0 11.0
2.67 3 1.8 3.0 14.0
2.73 1 .6 1.0 15.0
2.87 2 1.2 2.0 17.0
2.93 1 .6 1.0 18.0
3.00 1 .6 1.0 19.0
3.07 1 .6 1.0 20.0

3.20 3 1.8 3.0 23.0
3.27 1 .6 1.0 24.0
3.33 2 1.2 2.0 26.0
3.40 2 1.2 2.0 28.0
3.47 1 .6 1.0 29.0
3.60 1 .6 1.0 30.0
3.67 2 1.2 2.0 32.0
3.80 1 .6 1.0 33.0
3.87 2 1.2 2.0 35.0
3.93 2 1.2 2.0 37.0
4.00 3 1.8 3.0 40.0
4.07 4 2.4 4.0 44.0
4.13 3 1.8 3.0 47.0
4.20 4 2.4 4.0 51.0

4.27 4 2.4 4.0 55.0
4.33 7 4.1 7.0 62.0
4.40 7 4.1 7.0 69.0
4.47 5 3.0 5.0 74.0
4.53 2 1.2 2.0 76.0
4.60 4 2.4 4.0 80.0
4.67 9 5.3 9.0 89.0
4.73 1 .6 1.0 90.0
4.80 2 1.2 2.0 92.0
4.87 4 2.4 4.0 96.0
4.93 4 2.4 4.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0

of the respondents went with often and always in responding to consultants poorly executed design
drawings.
TABLE (4-22): RESPONDENTS AS PER CONSULTANT’S POORLY EXECUTED DESIGN

DRAWINGS
Consultant’s poorly executed design drawings
Rarely 9 5.3 9.0 14.0
Often 37 21.9 37.0 62.0
Always 38 22.5 38.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
Majority of the respondents went with often and always in responding to consultant’s error, incomplete or
inaccurate pricing documents.
TABLE (4-23): RESPONDENTS AS PER CONSULTANT`S ERROR, INCOMPLETE OR
INACCURATE PRICING DOCUMENTS
Consultant`s Error, incomplete or inaccurate pricing documents
Rarely 10 5.9 10.0 15.0
Often 35 20.7 35.0 64.0
Always 36 21.3 36.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
Majority of the respondents went with always in responding to communication problems by the
consultant.
TABLE (4-24): RESPONDENTS AS PER COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS BY THE

CONSULTANT
communication problems by the consultant
Rarely 27 16.0 27.0 30.0
Often 19 11.2 19.0 62.0
Always 38 22.5 38.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
Majority of the respondents went with often and always in responding to inadequate site investigation by
consultant before the design period.
TABLE (4-25): RESPONDENTS AS PER INADEQUATE SITE INVESTIGATION BY

CONSULTANT BEFORE THE DESIGN PERIOD
Inadequate site investigation by consultant before the design period

Rarely 11 6.5 11.0 12.0
Often 34 20.1 34.0 60.0
Always 40 23.7 40.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
Majority of the respondents went with often and always in responding to insufficient material
investigation by consultant.
TABLE (4-26): RESPONDENTS AS PER INSUFFICIENT MATERIAL INVESTIGATION BY

CONSULTANT
Insufficient material investigation by consultant

Rarely 11 6.5 11.0 17.0
Often 32 18.9 32.0 59.0
Always 41 24.3 41.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
of the respondents went with often and always in responding to improper construction method by the
consultant.
TABLE (4-27): RESPONDENTS AS PER IMPROPER CONSTRUCTION METHOD BY THE

CONSULTANT
Improper construction method by the consultant

Rarely 8 4.7 8.0 13.0
Often 42 24.9 42.0 73.0
Always 27 16.0 27.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
of the respondents went with often and always in responding to uncertainty in locating pipe positions
underground by consultants.
Table (4-28): Respondents as per Uncertainty in locating pipe positions underground by consultant
Uncertainty in locating pipe positions underground by consultant
Rarely 6 3.6 6.0 11.0

Often 36 21.3 36.0 65.0
Always 35 20.7 35.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
of the respondents went with often and always in responding to change in design by the consultants.
TABLE (4-29): RESPONDENTS AS PER CHANGE IN DESIGN BY CONSULTANT
Change in design by consultant
Often 36 21.3 36.0 64.0
Always 36 21.3 36.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0

Total 169 100.0
Majority of the respondents went with often and always in responding to conflict between consultants and
contract documents.
TABLE (4-30): RESPONDENTS AS PER CONFLICTS BETWEEN CONSULTANT &

CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
Conflicts between consultant & contract documents
Rarely 10 5.9 10.0 15.0
Often 37 21.9 37.0 62.0
Always 38 22.5 38.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0

Total 169 100.0
of the respondents went with always in responding to design complexity from the consultants.
TABLE (4-31): RESPONDENTS AS PER DESIGN COMPLEXITY FROM THE CONSULTANT
Design complexity from the consultant
Rarely 5 3.0 5.0 7.0
Often 29 17.2 29.0 51.0
Always 49 29.0 49.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
of the respondents went with often and always in responding to inadequate shop drawing details by the
consultants.
TABLE (4-32): RESPONDENTS AS PER INADEQUATE SHOP DRAWING DETAILS BY THE
CONSULTANT
Inadequate shop drawing details by the consultant
Rarely 4 2.4 4.0 5.0
Often 35 20.7 35.0 56.0
Always 44 26.0 44.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
Majority of the respondents went with often and always.
TABLE (4-33): RESPONDENTS AS PER LACK OF CONSULTANT'S KNOWLEDGE OF

AVAILABLE
Lack of consultant's knowledge of available

Rarely 10 5.9 10.0 15.0
Often 35 20.7 35.0 64.0
Always 36 21.3 36.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
Majority of the respondents went with always.
TABLE (4-34): RESPONDENTS AS PER DESIGN DISCREPANCIES BY THE CONSULTANT
Design discrepancies by the consultant

Rarely 27 16.0 27.0 29.0
Often 19 11.2 19.0 62.0
Always 38 22.5 38.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-35): RESPONDENTS AS PER CONSULTANT’S UNFAMILIARITY WITH LOCAL

CONDITIONS
Consultant’s unfamiliarity with local conditions
Rarely 11 6.5 11.0 13.0

Often 39 23.1 39.0 72.0
Always 28 16.6 28.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-36): RESPONDENTS AS PER ERRORS AND OMISSIONS IN DESIGN BY THE

CONSULTANT
Errors and omissions in design by the consultant
Rarely 28 16.6 28.0 30.0
Often 19 11.2 19.0 62.0
Always 38 22.5 38.0 100.0

Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
4.3.3.3. RELATED TO CONTRACTORS
In this portion of analysis classification has been done of data of responses which relate to the contractors.
The data has been structured statistically based on the responses and has been classified as percentage.
The detailed explanation and classification of percentage of responses shall be seen below in detail.
TABLE (4-37): RESPONDENTS AS PER RELATED TO CONTRACTORS
Related to Contractors
Valid 1.44 2 1.2 2.0 2.0
1.56 1 .6 1.0 3.0
1.63 1 .6 1.0 4.0
1.69 1 .6 1.0 5.0
1.75 1 .6 1.0 6.0
1.88 1 .6 1.0 7.0

2.31 1 .6 1.0 8.0
2.38 1 .6 1.0 9.0
2.44 1 .6 1.0 10.0
2.56 2 1.2 2.0 12.0
2.81 2 1.2 2.0 14.0
2.88 1 .6 1.0 15.0
2.94 1 .6 1.0 16.0
3.00 2 1.2 2.0 18.0
3.06 1 .6 1.0 19.0
3.13 2 1.2 2.0 21.0
3.25 1 .6 1.0 22.0
3.31 1 .6 1.0 23.0
3.44 1 .6 1.0 24.0
3.50 2 1.2 2.0 26.0

3.56 1 .6 1.0 27.0
3.63 3 1.8 3.0 30.0
3.75 2 1.2 2.0 32.0
3.81 2 1.2 2.0 34.0
3.88 1 .6 1.0 35.0
3.94 1 .6 1.0 36.0
4.00 2 1.2 2.0 38.0
4.06 3 1.8 3.0 41.0
4.13 5 3.0 5.0 46.0
4.19 3 1.8 3.0 49.0
4.25 5 3.0 5.0 54.0
4.31 10 5.9 10.0 64.0
4.38 7 4.1 7.0 71.0
4.44 3 1.8 3.0 74.0

4.50 4 2.4 4.0 78.0
4.56 4 2.4 4.0 82.0
4.63 5 3.0 5.0 87.0
4.69 2 1.2 2.0 89.0
4.75 4 2.4 4.0 93.0
4.81 2 1.2 2.0 95.0
4.88 2 1.2 2.0 97.0
4.94 2 1.2 2.0 99.0
5.00 1 .6 1.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-38): RESPONDENTS AS PER LACK OF CONTRACTOR'S INVOLVEMENT IN

DESIGN
Lack of contractor's involvement in design
Rarely 17 10.1 17.0 20.0
Often 35 20.7 35.0 70.0
Always 30 17.8 30.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
of the respondents went with often and always.
TABLE (4-39): RESPONDENTS AS PER UNAVAILABILITY OF EQUIPMENT DUE TO

CONTRACTOR
Unavailability of equipment due to contractor

Rarely 10 5.9 10.0 17.0
Often 41 24.3 41.0 67.0
Always 33 19.5 33.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-40): RESPONDENTS AS PER UNAVAILABILITY OF SKILLS MANPOWER BY

THE CONTRACTOR
Unavailability of skills manpower by the contractor
Rarely 7 4.1 7.0 13.0

Often 30 17.8 30.0 59.0
Always 41 24.3 41.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-41): RESPONDENTS AS PER SHORTAGE OF MATERIALS PROVIDED BY

CONTRACTOR
Shortage of materials provided by contractor
Rarely 18 10.7 18.0 21.0
Often 41 24.3 41.0 74.0

Always 26 15.4 26.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-42): RESPONDENTS AS PER FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES FACED BY THE

CONTRACTOR
Financial difficulties faced by the contractor
Rarely 11 6.5 11.0 17.0
Often 32 18.9 32.0 59.0
Always 41 24.3 41.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0

Total 169 100.0
of the respondents went with often.
TABLE (4-43): RESPONDENTS AS PER SHORTAGE OF TECHNICAL PROFESSIONALS IN

THE CONTRACTOR’S ORGANIZATION
Shortage of technical professionals in the contractor’s organization
Rarely 8 4.7 8.0 13.0
Often 42 24.9 42.0 73.0
Always 27 16.0 27.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0

TABLE (4-44): RESPONDENTS AS PER INSUFFICIENT COORDINATION AMONG THE

PARTIES BY THE CONTRACTOR
Insufficient coordination among the parties by the contractor
Rarely 20 11.8 20.0 25.0
Often 34 20.1 34.0 75.0
Always 25 14.8 25.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-45): RESPONDENTS AS PER CONTRACTOR DID NOT FOLLOWED SAFETY

RULES AND REGULATIONS ASSIGNED BY CONTRACTOR’S ORGANIZATION
Contractor did not followed Safety rules and regulations assigned by contractor’s organization
Rarely 10 5.9 10.0 15.0
Often 35 20.7 35.0 64.0
Always 36 21.3 36.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-46): RESPONDENTS AS PER INCOMPETENT TECHNICAL STAFF ASSIGNED BY

CONTRACTOR
Incompetent technical staff assigned by contractor

Often 31 18.3 31.0 59.0
Always 41 24.3 41.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-47): RESPONDENTS AS PER IMPROPER TECHNICAL STUDY BY THE

CONTRACTOR DURING THE BIDDING STAGE
Improper technical study by the contractor during the bidding stage
Rarely 8 4.7 8.0 9.0

Often 34 20.1 34.0 62.0
Always 38 22.5 38.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-48): RESPONDENTS AS PER POOR PLANNING AND SCHEDULING OF THE

PROJECT BY THE CONTRACTOR
Poor planning and scheduling of the project by the contractor
Rarely 6 3.6 6.0 11.0
Often 36 21.3 36.0 65.0
Always 35 20.7 35.0 100.0

Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-49): RESPONDENTS AS PER IMPROPER HANDLING OF THE PROJECT

PROGRESS BY THE CONTRACTOR
Improper handling of the project progress by the contractor
Rarely 7 4.1 7.0 13.0
Often 30 17.8 30.0 59.0
Always 41 24.3 41.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0

Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-50): RESPONDENTS AS PER INEFFECTIVE QUALITY CONTROL BY THE

CONTRACTOR
Ineffective quality control by the contractor
Rarely 6 3.6 6.0 7.0
Often 32 18.9 32.0 58.0
Always 42 24.9 42.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-51): RESPONDENTS AS PER USE OF UNACCEPTABLE CONSTRUCTION
TECHNIQUES BY THE CONTRACTOR
Use of unacceptable construction techniques by the contractor
Often 33 19.5 33.0 60.0
Always 40 23.7 40.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-52): RESPONDENTS AS PER POOR PROCUREMENT PROCESS BY THE

CONTRACTOR
Poor procurement process by the contractor

Rarely 9 5.3 9.0 14.0
Often 37 21.9 37.0 62.0
Always 38 22.5 38.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-53): RESPONDENTS AS PER LACK OF COMMUNICATION BY CONTRACTOR
Lack of Communication by contractor
Rarely 5 3.0 5.0 14.0

Often 32 18.9 32.0 60.0
Always 40 23.7 40.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
Most of the responses went against the contractors and showed that major inefficiency is because of the
contractors.
4.3.3.4. RELATED TO OTHER CHANGES
In the table below the relative changes in responses based on other factors of the projects have been
discussed.
TABLE (4-54): RESPONDENTS AS PER RELATED TO OTHER CHANGES
Other Changes
Valid 1.29 1 .6 1.0 1.0
1.43 2 1.2 2.0 3.0

1.57 2 1.2 2.0 5.0
1.71 1 .6 1.0 6.0
1.86 2 1.2 2.0 8.0
2.29 1 .6 1.0 9.0
2.43 2 1.2 2.0 11.0
2.57 4 2.4 4.0 15.0
2.71 3 1.8 3.0 18.0
2.86 1 .6 1.0 19.0
3.00 2 1.2 2.0 21.0
3.14 4 2.4 4.0 25.0
3.43 3 1.8 3.0 28.0
3.57 4 2.4 4.0 32.0
3.71 4 2.4 4.0 36.0
3.86 5 3.0 5.0 41.0

4.00 7 4.1 7.0 48.0
4.14 13 7.7 13.0 61.0
4.29 13 7.7 13.0 74.0
4.43 9 5.3 9.0 83.0
4.57 11 6.5 11.0 94.0
4.71 4 2.4 4.0 98.0
5.00 2 1.2 2.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-55): RESPONDENTS AS PER CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS
Change in government regulations

Rarely 28 16.6 28.0 31.0
Often 19 11.2 19.0 62.0
Always 38 22.5 38.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-55): RESPONDENTS AS PER SEVERE WEATHER CONDITIONS ON THE JOB

SITE
Severe weather conditions on the job site
Rarely 11 6.5 11.0 12.0

Often 34 20.1 34.0 60.0
Always 40 23.7 40.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
Majority of the respondents went with often.
TABLE (4-56): RESPONDENTS AS PER CHANGE IN ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
Change in economic conditions
Rarely 27 16.0 27.0 36.0
Often 32 18.9 32.0 85.0

Always 15 8.9 15.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-57): RESPONDENTS AS PER UNFORESEEN PROBLEMS
Unforeseen problems
Rarely 5 3.0 5.0 14.0
Often 32 18.9 32.0 60.0
Always 40 23.7 40.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0

Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-58): RESPONDENTS AS PER POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC FACTOR
Political and economic factor
Rarely 8 4.7 8.0 12.0
Often 34 20.1 34.0 63.0
Always 37 21.9 37.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0

TABLE (4-59): RESPONDENTS AS PER DIFFICULTIES IN OBTAINING WORK PERMITS
Difficulties in obtaining work permits
Rarely 11 6.5 11.0 14.0
Often 42 24.9 42.0 71.0
Always 29 17.2 29.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-60): RESPONDENTS AS PER MATERIALS PRICE FLUCTUATIONS

Materials price fluctuations
Rarely 4 2.4 4.0 8.0
Often 42 24.9 42.0 74.0
Always 26 15.4 26.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
4.3.4. EFFECTS OF VARIATION
The effects of variation of data have been shown in the table below.
TABLE (4-61): RESPONDENTS AS PER EFFECTS OF VARIATIONS
Effects of variations

Valid 1.38 4 2.4 4.0 4.0
1.46 1 .6 1.0 5.0
1.54 1 .6 1.0 6.0
1.62 1 .6 1.0 7.0
2.23 1 .6 1.0 8.0
2.46 4 2.4 4.0 12.0
2.54 3 1.8 3.0 15.0
2.69 2 1.2 2.0 17.0
2.77 2 1.2 2.0 19.0
2.85 2 1.2 2.0 21.0
3.23 3 1.8 3.0 24.0
3.31 1 .6 1.0 25.0
3.38 1 .6 1.0 26.0
3.46 3 1.8 3.0 29.0

3.54 1 .6 1.0 30.0
3.62 2 1.2 2.0 32.0
3.69 2 1.2 2.0 34.0
3.92 5 3.0 5.0 39.0
4.00 3 1.8 3.0 42.0
4.08 5 3.0 5.0 47.0
4.15 8 4.7 8.0 55.0
4.23 10 5.9 10.0 65.0
4.31 4 2.4 4.0 69.0
4.38 7 4.1 7.0 76.0
4.46 8 4.7 8.0 84.0
4.54 5 3.0 5.0 89.0
4.62 5 3.0 5.0 94.0
4.69 1 .6 1.0 95.0

4.77 3 1.8 3.0 98.0
4.92 2 1.2 2.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-62): RESPONDENTS AS PER INCREASE IN THE COST OF THE PROJECTS
Increase in the cost of the projects
Rarely 9 5.3 9.0 14.0
Often 37 21.9 37.0 62.0
Always 38 22.5 38.0 100.0

Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
of the respondents went with often.
TABLE (4-63): RESPONDENTS AS PER INCREASE IN DURATION OF INDIVIDUAL

ACTIVITIES
Increase in duration of individual activities
Rarely 9 5.3 9.0 14.0
Often 48 28.4 48.0 77.0
Always 23 13.6 23.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0

Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-64): RESPONDENTS AS PER DELAY IN COMPLETION SCHEDULE
Delay in completion schedule
Rarely 6 3.6 6.0 11.0
Often 36 21.3 36.0 65.0
Always 35 20.7 35.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-65): RESPONDENTS AS PER DELAY IN PAYMENT
Delay in payment
Rarely 7 4.1 7.0 13.0
Often 30 17.8 30.0 59.0
Always 41 24.3 41.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-66): RESPONDENTS AS PER DEMOLITION AND RE – WORK
Demolition and re – work

Rarely 18 10.7 18.0 21.0
Often 41 24.3 41.0 74.0
Always 26 15.4 26.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-67): RESPONDENTS AS PER DECREASE IN PRODUCTIVITY OF WORKERS
Decrease in productivity of workers

Rarely 10 5.9 10.0 15.0
Often 35 20.7 35.0 64.0
Always 36 21.3 36.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-68): RESPONDENTS AS PER INCREASE IN OVERHEAD EXPENSES
Increase in overhead expenses
Rarely 28 16.6 28.0 31.0

Often 19 11.2 19.0 62.0
Always 38 22.5 38.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-69): RESPONDENTS AS PER DECREASE IN QUALITY OF WORK
Decrease in quality of work
Rarely 27 16.0 27.0 36.0
Often 32 18.9 32.0 85.0
Always 15 8.9 15.0 100.0

Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-70): RESPONDENTS AS PER DELAY OF MATERIALS AND TOOLS
Delay of materials and tools
Rarely 5 3.0 5.0 14.0
Often 32 18.9 32.0 60.0
Always 40 23.7 40.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0

Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-71): RESPONDENTS AS PER DISPUTES BETWEEN CLIENTS AND

CONTRACTOR
Disputes between clients and contractor
Rarely 9 5.3 9.0 14.0
Often 37 21.9 37.0 62.0
Always 38 22.5 38.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-72): RESPONDENTS AS PER HOLD ON WORK IN OTHER AREAS
Hold on work in other areas
Rarely 7 4.1 7.0 8.0
Often 35 20.7 35.0 62.0
Always 38 22.5 38.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-73): RESPONDENTS AS PER ADDITIONAL MONEY FOR CONTRACTOR
Additional money for contractor

Rarely 18 10.7 18.0 21.0
Often 34 20.1 34.0 70.0
Always 30 17.8 30.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
TABLE (4-74): RESPONDENTS AS PER DECREASE IN PRODUCTIVITY
Decrease in productivity

Rarely 27 16.0 27.0 30.0
Often 19 11.2 19.0 62.0
Always 38 22.5 38.0 100.0
Total 100 59.2 100.0
Total 169 100.0
The statistical data and classification of the data which has been gathered through the responses has been
shown below.
TABLE (4-75): STATISTICS OF DATA
Statistics
Academic Degree Type of

Position Experience Held Organization
N Valid 100 100 100 100
Missing 69 69 69 69
Mode 3 3 2 1a
Range 4 3 2 1
Percentiles 25 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
50 3.00 3.00 2.00 1.50
75 4.00 3.00 3.00 2.00
a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown
From the data which has been evaluated it is clear that the impact in the delay and hurdle arise mainly
because of the change in plans. The change can be initiated by either the client, consultant or the
contractor. All of the individuals are responsible for the delay as they are inefficient and don’t design the
plans through appropriate strategic planning required for the project.

Chapter 4 Data Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 4 Data Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULT ANALYSIS

4.2. DATA COLLECTION

4.3. RESULTS ANALYSIS

4.3.1. GENERAL INFORMATION OF THE PARTICIPANTS

TABLE (4-1): RESPONDENTS AS PER POSITION

Valid Client 14 8.3 14.0 14.0

Project Manager 19 11.2 19.0 33.0

Contractors 28 16.6 28.0 61.0

Quantity Surveyor 18 10.7 18.0 79.0

Consultant 21 12.4 21.0 100.0

Total 100 59.2 100.0

Missing System 69 40.8

Total 169 100.0

FIGURE (4-1): PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS AS PER POSITION

TABLE (4-2): RESPONDENTS AS PER EXPERIENCE

Valid 0 - 5 years 22 13.0 22.0 22.0

11 - 15 years 30 17.8 30.0 76.0

> 15 years 24 14.2 24.0 100.0

Total 100 59.2 100.0

Missing System 69 40.8

Total 169 100.0

FIGURE (4-2): PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS AS PER EXPERIENCE

TABLE (4-3): RESPONDENTS AS PER ACADEMIC DEGREE HELD

Academic Degree Held

Valid Bachelor 32 18.9 32.0 32.0

Masters 37 21.9 37.0 69.0

Total 100 59.2 100.0

Missing System 69 40.8

Total 169 100.0

FIGURE (4-3): PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS AS PER ACADEMIC DEGREE HELD

TABLE (4-4): RESPONDENTS AS PER TYPE OF ORGANIZATION

Valid Public 50 29.6 50.0 50.0

Private 50 29.6 50.0 100.0

Total 100 59.2 100.0

Missing System 69 40.8

Total 169 100.0

FIGURE (4-4): PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS AS PER TYPE OF ORGANIZATION

4.3.2. ANALYSIS OF OVERALL RESULTS

4.3.3. CAUSES OF VARIATION

4.3.3.1. RELATED TO CLIENTS

TABLE (4-5): RESPONDENTS AS PER RELATED TO CLIENTS

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 1.53 1 .6 1.0 1.0

1.67 1 .6 1.0 2.0

1.80 1 .6 1.0 3.0

1.93 1 .6 1.0 4.0

2.07 1 .6 1.0 5.0

2.20 1 .6 1.0 6.0

2.33 1 .6 1.0 7.0

2.40 1 .6 1.0 8.0

2.47 1 .6 1.0 9.0

2.53 2 1.2 2.0 11.0

3.20 1 .6 1.0 13.0

3.27 1 .6 1.0 14.0

3.33 1 .6 1.0 15.0

3.40 1 .6 1.0 16.0

3.47 5 3.0 5.0 21.0

3.53 1 .6 1.0 22.0

3.60 1 .6 1.0 23.0

3.67 3 1.8 3.0 26.0

3.73 4 2.4 4.0 30.0

3.80 4 2.4 4.0 34.0

3.87 2 1.2 2.0 36.0

3.93 2 1.2 2.0 38.0