Supplementary Information Statistics

Supporting Information for the Article:
Managerial Practitioners’ Perspectives on Quality Performance of Green

Building Execution
Ayman M.I. Raouf, MS and Sami G. Al-Ghamdi, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE
Summary of Questionnaire Results in the Article
1. Participant Demographics
Years of experience in construction industry in general:
How many years of experience have you been

involved in construction and/or operations?
Answer Choices Responses
0-2 years 2.78% 2
3-5 years 9.72% 7
6-10 years 18.06% 13
10-15 years 27.78% 20
15+ years 41.67% 30
Answered 72
Skipped 9
Years of experience in green buildings in particular
How long have you been involved with green

buildings?
0-2 years 23.61% 17
3-5 years 27.78% 20
6-10 years 33.33% 24
10-15 years 9.72% 7
15+ years 5.56% 4
Answered 72
Skipped 9
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 10-15 years 15+ years
Overall Years of Experience Green Building Years of Experience
2. Entity the respondent represents:
Which entity do you represent?

Client/Client Representative 33.80% 24
Contractor 35.21% 25
Consultant (i.e. Design or Supervision Consultant) 28.17% 20
Other (please specify) 2.82% 2
Answered 71
Skipped 10
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Client/Client Contractor Consultant (i.e. Other (please
Representative Design or specify)
Supervision
Consultant)
Role In Project
What is your role in the project?

Project Manager 25.00% 18
Construction Manager 12.50% 9
Quality Manager 18.06% 13
Sustainability Manager 34.72% 25
Facilities Manager 9.72% 7
Answered 72
Skipped 9
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00% Responses
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Project Construction Quality Sustainability Facilities
Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager
3. Projects Information
Project Type:
Project Type PM CM QM SM FM Total

Residential 4 3 4 0 3 14
Commercial 5 0 2 11 0 18
Office 2 2 4 0 1 9
School/University 3 4 2 0 2 11
Sports Complex 2 0 0 13 1 16
Healthcare 2 0 1 0 0 3
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Residential Commercial Office School/University Sports Complex Healthcare
PM CM QM SM FM Total
Residential
11%
22% Commercial
11%
Office
School/University
17%
Sports Complex
28%
11% Healthcare
Project Size
Project Size in USD PM CM QM SM FM

$ 5-10 Million 3 1 1 0 0
$ 10-15 Million 1 0 0 3 0
$ 15+ Million 14 8 12 21 7
25
20
15
10
0
$ 5-10 Million $ 10-15 Million $ 15+ Million
PM CM QM SM FM
Delivery System Type
Delivery System PM CM QM SM FM
Design Bid Build 5 4 3 3 1
Design and Build 12 3 8 18 4
Construction Management Agency/@Risk 1 2 1 0 0
Hybrid (please specify) 0 0 1 3 0
Unable to Tell 0 0 0 0 2
Total 18 9 13 24 7
Payment Mechanism
Payment Provision PM CM QM SM FM
Unable to Tell 0 0 2 0 4
Other (please specify) 0 0 1 4 0
GMP 1 0 0 1 0
Fixed Price 2 3 0 6 1
Cost Reimbursable/Cost
plus 2 0 1 1 0
Lump Sum 13 6 9 12 2
Lump Sum
Cost Reimbursable/Cost plus
Fixed Price
Guaranteed Maximum Price
Other (please specify)
Unable to Tell
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
PM CM QM SM FM
Green certification Types Pursued
Certification Type PM QM* FM Total

LEED 3 3 4 10
GSAS 5 7 2 14
BREEAM 0 0 0 0
*The QM results were collated based on the Collector of the online platform. Also important to note
on occasions that the PM and QM worked on the same project so it was not feasible to separate the
results on certification type for a project but rather on managerial type.
4. Quality Control and Assurance Awareness
Respondents’ asked to respond correctly to the definitions of Quality Assurance and Quality
Control:
Quality Assurance: “Owner/owner representative conducting planned, systematic actions to

establish level of confidence that project design documents comply with applicable codes,
standards and criteria, and that the resulting construction complies with the contract
documents.”
“Design or construction professional conducting plans, procedures, resources and organisation

needed to monitor quality of the contract documents to ensure consistency with applicable
codes, standards and criteria. This includes observations, inspections, tests and documentation
that either confirm quality processes and systems are effective in ensuring achievement of
quality.”
Chi-Squared Test for QA QC Definitions
Actual
QA Correct QC Correct Total Number of
Response Definition Definition Respondents
QM 3 5 13
CM 5 5 9
PM 5 5 18
SM 5 5 25
FM 4 5 7
Grand total 22 25 72
Expected
QA Correct QC Correct Total number of
Response Definition Defintion respondents
QM 3.972222222 4.51388889 13
CM 2.75 3.125 9
PM 5.5 6.25 18
SM 7.638888889 8.68055556 25
FM 2.138888889 2.43055556 7
Grand total 22 25 72
Ho is that there is no difference between managerial type and correct

answer for Quality Control and Assurance
less than 0.05 is strong evidence against null
P to reject 0.05 hypotheisis
P value: 0.03478807 Reject null hypothesis
Conclusion: difference between the managers in the perception of the correct answer
5. Ranking of Quality Consequences
Rank 1: Greatest priority consequence that the manager influences
Rank 7: Lowest priority consequence that the manager influences
Cost
Assigning
Overruns Labor
Managerial Respondent Liquidated Reputation Schedule Material Team to
in Productivity
Type Number Damages Loss Delays Loss Work
Rectifying Loss
Overtime
Mistakes
QM
1 7 1 5 6 3 2 4
2 7 5 2 4 6 1 3
3 7 1 2 6 3 4 5
4 7 1 2 6 5 3 4
5 6 1 3 5 7 2 4
6 3 1 5 4 6 7 2
Cost
Assigning
Overruns Labor
Managerial Respondent Liquidated Reputation Schedule Material Team to
in Productivity
Type Number Damages Loss Delays Loss Work
Rectifying Loss
Overtime
Mistakes
7 4 3 1 2 5 6 7
PM 1 4 1 2 3 5 6 7
2 1 2 3 4 7 6 5
3 7 4 2 1 5 3 6
4 5 1 2 4 3 6 7
5 3 1 4 2 5 7 6
6 6 7 3 5 4 1 2
7 7 5 2 3 4 6 1
8 4 3 6 1 5 2 7
9 3 4 1 2 3 5 6
10 6 4 2 1 7 5 3
11 3 5 4 6 2 1 7
CM 1 3 5 4 1 2 7 6
2 5 1 3 2 4 6 7
3 6 7 5 3 4 1 2
4 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
5 6 7 1 3 4 2 5
6 7 5 2 1 6 3 4
7 1 2 3 5 6 4 7
8 1 2 3 4 6 7 5
Relative Importance Index Calculations
Overall
W 126 85 77 88 120 105 123
A 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
N 26 26 26 26 26 26 26
0.6923076 0.42307692 0.67582417
RII 9 0.467033 3 0.483516484 0.65934066 0.576923077 6
7 2 1 3 5 4 6
Quality Managers
W 41 13 20 33 35 25 29
A 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
N 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
0.8367346 0.265306 0.40816326 0.59183673
RII 9 1 5 0.673469388 0.71428571 0.510204082 5
7 1 2 5 6 3 4
Project Managers
W 49 37 31 32 50 48 57
A 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
N 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
0.6363636 0.480519 0.40259740
RII 4 5 3 0.415584416 0.64935065 0.623376623 0.74025974
5 3 1 2 6 4 7
CM
W 36 35 26 23 35 32 37
A 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
N 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
0.6428571 0.57142857
RII 4 0.625 0.464285714 0.410714286 0.625 1 0.660714286
6 4 2 1 5 3 7
6. Mann Whitney Test
Quality Failure Asymptotic Significance (2-tailed) of Pairwise Comparison

Consequences Ranked In Test 1 Test 2 Test 3
Terms of Managerial Type
Influence PM and CM PM and QM QM and CM
Liquidated Damages 0.867 0.113 0.207
Reputation Loss 0.258 0.096 0.026*
Cost Overruns 0.396 0.962 0.512
Schedule Delays 0.966 0.038* 0.034*
Material Loss 0.834 0.485 0.476
Labor Productivity Loss 0.9 0.55 0.724
Overtime 0.473 0.231 0.48
Mann Whitney Test results for each item shown in subsequent pages
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Schedule Delays QM and CM
1 1 6 14 3 2 Gender coding
2 1 4 8.5 4 5 1 Quality Manager
3 1 6 14 2 Construction Manager Step 1: Counts
4 1 6 14
5 1 5 11.5 2 0.5 Opinion coding Group n
6 1 4 8.5 1 Highest Quality M 7 =COUNTIF(A:A;G3)
7 1 2 3.5 2 0.5 2 Constructi 8
1 2 1 1.5 2 0.5 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
2 2 2 3.5 4 total 15
3 2 3 5.5 2 0.5 5 Step 2:
4 2 4 8.5 6
5 2 3 5.5 7 Lowest Group
6 2 1 1.5 Quality M 28 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
7 2 5 11.5 Constructi 36 2
8 2 4 8.5 0 0
#N/A Step 3: Determine ranks
#N/A
#N/A Determine the rank for each respondent (use average rank)
#N/A C2: =RANK.AVG(B2;B:B;1)
#N/A
#N/A Step 4: Determine average rank and sum of ranks per group
#N/A
#N/A Group Avg. Rank Sum rank (Ri)
#N/A Quality M 10.57143 74 =SUMIF(A:A;G3;C:C)
#N/A Constructi 5.75 46
#N/A Constructi #DIV/0! 0
#N/A Step 5: Determine difference with Max rank (U)
#N/A
#N/A Group Difference
#N/A UDF 10 Quality M 46 =N24-M14 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A Constructi 10 2
#N/A
#N/A Step 6: Determine numerator for Z
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
#N/A Quality M 18 =M30-$M$7*$M$8/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛□ −
#N/A Project Ma -18 2
#N/A
#N/A Step 7: Determine the number of tied scores (t i)
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A D2: =IF(COUNTIF($C$1:C1;C2)>0;"";COUNTIF(C:C;C2))
#N/A
#N/A Step 8: Determine the adjustment for ties per tied rank
#N/A
See column E
𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ =
12
Step 9: Sum the results of step 8
Sum Ti 9 =SUM(E:E) 𝑛 = □ 𝑛□
Step 10: Determine denominator (= SE)
denominator 8.50098 =SQRT(M7*M8/(M9*(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
Step 11: Determine Z 𝑛𝑛 = × − □𝑛□
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF -2.1174 Z 2.117403 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛
Step 12: Determine significance
UDF 0.034226 sig 0.034226 =2*(1-NORM.S.DIST(ABS(M57);TRUE))

0.034226 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Reputation Loss QM and PM
1 1 1 3.5 6 17.5Gender coding
2 1 5 11 3 2 1 Quality Manager
3 1 1 3.5 2 Construction Manager Step 1: Counts
4 1 1 3.5 3 Construction Manager
5 1 1 3.5 Opinion coding Group n
7 1 3 9 1 0 2 Constructi 8
1 2 5 11 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
2 2 1 3.5 4 total 15
3 2 7 14.5 2 0.5 5 Step 2:
4 2 6 13 1 0 6
6 2 5 11 Quality M 28 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
7 2 2 7.5 2 0.5 Constructi 36 2
8 2 2 7.5 0 0
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Quality M 5.357143 37.5 =SUMIF(A:A;G3;C:C)
#N/A Constructi 10.3125 82.5
#N/A
#N/A UDF 9.5 Quality M 9.5 =N24-M14 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
#N/A Quality M -18.5 =M30-$M$7*$M$8/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛□ −
#N/A Project Ma 18.5 2
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ =
12
Sum Ti 20.5 =SUM(E:E) 𝑛 = □ 𝑛□

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF -2.22392 Z -2.22392 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.026154 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Overtime QM and CM
1 1 4 6.5 4 5 Gender coding
3 1 5 10 3 2 2 Construction Manager Step 1: Counts
4 1 4 6.5 Construction Manager
6 1 2 2.5 2 0.5 1 Highest Quality M 7 =COUNTIF(A:A;G3)
7 1 7 14 3 2 2 Constructi 8
1 2 6 12 1 0 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
2 2 7 14 4 total 15
3 2 2 2.5 5 Step 2:
4 2 1 1 1 0 6
5 2 5 10 7 Lowest Group
6 2 4 6.5 Quality M 28 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
7 2 7 14 Constructi 36 2
8 2 5 10 0 0
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
#N/A Quality M -6 =M30-$M$7*$M$8/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛□ −
#N/A Project Ma 6 2
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF -0.70645 Z -0.70645 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.479906 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Material Loss QM and CM
4 1 5 8.5 2 0.5
5 1 7 15 1 0 Opinion coding Group n
6 1 6 12 1 Highest Quality M 7 =COUNTIF(A:A;G3)
7 1 5 8.5 2 Constructi 8
1 2 2 1 1 0 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
2 2 4 6 3 2 4 total 15
3 2 4 6 5 Step 2:
4 2 3 3 6
6 2 6 12 Quality M 28 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
8 2 6 12 0 0
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF -0.71307 Z 0.713074 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.4758 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Liquidated Damages QM and CM
1 1 7 12.5 6 17.5 Gender coding
2 1 7 12.5 1 Quality Manager
3 1 7 12.5 2 Project manager Step 1: Counts
7 1 4 5 1 0 2 Project ma 8
1 2 3 3.5 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
2 2 5 6 1 0 4 total 15
3 2 6 8 5 Step 2:
4 2 7 12.5 6
6 2 7 12.5 Quality M 28 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
7 2 1 1.5 2 0.5 Project ma 36 2
8 2 1 1.5 0 0
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Project ma 6.6875 53.5
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A Project ma 17.5 2
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
#N/A Quality M 10.5 =M30-$M$7*$M$8/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛□ −
#N/A Project Ma -10.5 2
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF 1.262223 Z 1.262223 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.206868 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Labor Productivity QM and CM
2 1 1 1.5 2 0.5 1 Quality Manager
3 1 4 9.5 2 0.5 2 Construction Manager Step 1: Counts
4 1 3 7.5 2 0.5
6 1 7 14 3 2 1 Highest Quality M 7 =COUNTIF(A:A;G3)
7 1 6 11.5 2 0.5 2 Constructi 8
1 2 7 14 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
2 2 6 11.5 4 total 15
3 2 1 1.5 5 Step 2:
4 2 2 4.5 6
6 2 3 7.5 Quality M 28 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
7 2 4 9.5 Constructi 36 2
8 2 7 14 0 0
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A Project Ma 3 2
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF -0.3529 Z -0.3529 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.724163 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Cost Overruns QM and CM
4 1 2 4.5
5 1 3 8.5 4 5 Opinion coding Group n
7 1 1 1.5 2 0.5 2 Constructi 8
1 2 4 11 1 0 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
2 2 3 8.5 4 total 15
3 2 5 13.5 5 Step 2:
4 2 5 13.5 6
6 2 2 4.5 Quality M 28 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
8 2 3 8.5 0 0
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF -0.65489 Z -0.65489 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.512541 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Schedule Delays QM and PM
7 1 2 5 3 2 2 Project ma 11
1 2 3 7.5 2 0.5 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
2 2 4 10.5 4 total 18
3 2 1 2 3 2 5 Step 2:
4 2 4 10.5 6
6 2 5 13.5 Quality M 28 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
7 2 3 7.5 Project ma 66 2
8 2 1 2 0 0
9 2 2 5 Step 3: Determine ranks
10 2 1 2
11 2 6 16.5 Determine the rank for each respondent (use average rank)
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A Project ma 16 2
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF 2.070046 Z 2.070046 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.038448 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
4 1 1 4.5
7 1 3 10.5 2 0.5 2 Project ma 11
1 2 1 4.5 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
2 2 2 9 1 0 4 total 18
3 2 4 13 3 2 5 Step 2:
4 2 1 4.5 6
6 2 7 18 1 0 Quality M 28 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
7 2 5 16 Project ma 66 2
8 2 3 10.5 0 0
10 2 4 13
11 2 5 16 Determine the rank for each respondent (use average rank)
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Quality M 7 49 =SUMIF(A:A;G3;C:C)
#N/A Project ma 11.09091 122
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF -1.66693 Z -1.66693 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.095529 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Overtime QM and PM
3 1 5 9.5 2 0.5 2 Project manager Step 1: Counts
4 1 4 7 3 Construction Manager
5 1 4 7 Opinion coding Group n
7 1 7 16 5 10 2 Project ma 11
1 2 7 16 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
2 2 5 9.5 4 total 18
3 2 6 12 3 2 5 Step 2:
4 2 7 16 6
6 2 2 2.5 Quality M 28 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
7 2 1 1 1 0 Project ma 66 2
8 2 7 16 0 0
10 2 3 4.5
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Project ma 10.68182 117.5
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A Project Ma 13 2
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF -1.19666 Z -1.19666 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.231437 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Material Loss QM and PM
4 1 5 10.5 6 17.5 3 Construction Manager
7 1 5 10.5 2 Project ma 11
1 2 5 10.5 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
2 2 7 17 4 total 18
3 2 5 10.5 5 Step 2:
4 2 3 3.5 6
6 2 4 6.5 2 0.5 Quality M 28 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
7 2 4 6.5 Project ma 66 2
8 2 5 10.5 0 0
9 2 3 3.5 Step 3: Determine ranks
10 2 7 17
11 2 2 1 1 0 Determine the rank for each respondent (use average rank)
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF 0.697863 Z 0.697863 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.485263 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Liquidated Damages QM and PM
1 1 7 15.5 6 17.5 Gender coding
6 1 3 3.5 4 5 1 Highest Quality M 7 =COUNTIF(A:A;G3)
7 1 4 7 3 2 2 Project ma 11
1 2 4 7 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
2 2 1 1 1 0 4 total 18
3 2 7 15.5 5 Step 2:
4 2 5 9 1 0 6
6 2 6 11 Quality M 28 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
7 2 7 15.5 Project ma 66 2
8 2 4 7 0 0
10 2 6 11
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Project ma 7.954545 87.5
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF 1.583549 Z 1.583549 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.113296 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Labor Productivity QM and PM
3 1 4 9 1 0 2 Project manager Step 1: Counts
7 1 6 14 5 10 2 Project ma 11
1 2 6 14 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
2 2 6 14 4 total 18
3 2 3 7.5 5 Step 2:
4 2 6 14 6
6 2 1 2 Quality M 28 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
7 2 6 14 Project ma 66 2
8 2 2 5 0 0
9 2 5 10.5 2 0.5 Step 3: Determine ranks
10 2 5 10.5
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Project ma 10.09091 111
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF -0.59833 Z -0.59833 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.549618 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Cost Overruns QM and PM
1 1 5 16.5 2 0.5 Gender coding
7 1 1 1.5 2 0.5 2 Project ma 11
1 2 2 6.5 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
2 2 3 12 4 total 18
3 2 2 6.5 5 Step 2:
4 2 2 6.5 6
5 2 4 14.5 2 0.5 7 Lowest Group
6 2 3 12 Quality M 28 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
7 2 2 6.5 Project ma 66 2
8 2 6 18 1 0 0 0
10 2 2 6.5
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Project ma 9.545455 105
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF -0.04757 Z -0.04757 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.962057 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Schedule Delays PM and CM
2 1 4 14.5 4 5 1 Project Manager
4 1 4 14.5
6 1 5 17.5 2 0.5 1 Highest Project Ma 11 =COUNTIF(A:A;G3)
8 1 1 3 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
9 1 2 7 4 total 19
10 1 1 3 5 Step 2:
11 1 6 19 1 0 6
2 2 2 7 Project Ma 66 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
3 2 3 10.5 Constructi 36 2
4 2 4 14.5 0 0
6 2 1 3
8 2 4 14.5 C2: =RANK.AVG(B2;B:B;1)
0 0
#N/A
#N/A Project Ma 9.954545 109.5 =SUMIF(A:A;G3;C:C)
#N/A
#N/A UDF 44.5 Project Ma 43.5 =N24-M14 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
#N/A Project Ma -0.5 =M30-$M$7*$M$8/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF 0.042126 Z -0.04213 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.966398 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Reputation Loss PM and CM
2 1 2 6 3 2 1 Project manager
4 1 1 2.5
6 1 7 18 3 2 1 Highest Project ma 11 =COUNTIF(A:A;G3)
7 1 5 13.5 4 5 2 Constructi 8
8 1 3 8 1 0 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
9 1 4 10 4 total 19
10 1 4 10 5 Step 2:
11 1 5 13.5 6
2 2 1 2.5 Project ma 66 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
4 2 6 16 1 0 0 0
6 2 5 13.5
8 2 2 6 C2: =RANK.AVG(B2;B:B;1)
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Project ma 8.772727 96.5 =SUMIF(A:A;G3;C:C)
#N/A
#N/A UDF 30.5 Project ma 30.5 =N24-M14 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
#N/A Project ma -13.5 =M30-$M$7*$M$8/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF -1.13071 Z -1.13071 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.258178 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Overtime PM and CM
3 1 6 11.5 4 5 2 Construction Manager Step 1: Counts
4 1 7 16.5
6 1 2 3.5 2 0.5 1 Highest Project ma 11 =COUNTIF(A:A;G3)
7 1 1 1.5 2 0.5 2 Constructi 8
8 1 7 16.5 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
9 1 6 11.5 4 total 19
10 1 3 5 1 0 5 Step 2:
11 1 7 16.5 6
2 2 7 16.5 Project ma 66 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
4 2 1 1.5 0 0
6 2 4 6 1 0
8 2 5 8 C2: =RANK.AVG(B2;B:B;1)
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
#N/A Project ma 8.5 =M30-$M$7*$M$8/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF 0.718111 Z 0.718111 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.472689 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Material Losses PM and CM
1 1 5 12.5 4 5Gender coding
2 1 7 18.5 2 0.5 1 Project manager
4 1 3 4 3 2
7 1 4 8 2 Constructi 8
8 1 5 12.5 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
9 1 3 4 4 total 19
10 1 7 18.5 5 Step 2:
11 1 2 1.5 2 0.5 6
2 2 4 8 Project ma 66 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
4 2 3 4 0 0
6 2 6 16 3 2
8 2 6 16 C2: =RANK.AVG(B2;B:B;1)
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF -0.21015 Z 0.21015 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.83355 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Liquidated Damages PM and CM
2 1 1 2 3 2 1 Project Manager
4 1 5 10.5 2 0.5
6 1 6 13.5 4 5 1 Highest Project Ma 11 =COUNTIF(A:A;G3)
8 1 4 8.5 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
9 1 3 5.5 4 total 19
10 1 6 13.5 5 Step 2:
11 1 3 5.5 6
2 2 5 10.5 Project Ma 66 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
3 2 6 13.5 Constructi 36 2
4 2 7 17.5 0 0
6 2 7 17.5
8 2 1 2 C2: =RANK.AVG(B2;B:B;1)
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Project Ma 9.818182 108 =SUMIF(A:A;G3;C:C)
#N/A
#N/A UDF 42 Project Ma 42 =N24-M14 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
#N/A Project Ma -2 =M30-$M$7*$M$8/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛□ −
#N/A Project Ma 2 2
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF -0.16782 Z -0.16782 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.866728 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Labor Productivity PM and CM
2 1 6 14 1 Project manager
4 1 6 14
8 1 2 5 3 2 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
9 1 5 10.5 2 0.5 4 total 19
10 1 5 10.5 5 Step 2:
11 1 1 2 6
2 2 6 14 Project ma 66 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
4 2 2 5 0 0
6 2 3 7.5
8 2 7 18 C2: =RANK.AVG(B2;B:B;1)
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF 0.125748 Z 0.125748 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.899932 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Cost Overruns PM and CM
4 1 2 5.5
6 1 3 11 1 Highest Project Ma 11 =COUNTIF(A:A;G3)
8 1 6 19 1 0 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
9 1 1 1.5 2 0.5 4 total 19
10 1 2 5.5 5 Step 2:
11 1 4 15 6
2 2 3 11 Project Ma 66 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
3 2 5 17.5 2 0.5 Constructi 36 2
4 2 5 17.5 0 0
6 2 2 5.5
8 2 3 11 C2: =RANK.AVG(B2;B:B;1)
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF 0.848743 Z -0.84874 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.396025 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Cost Overruns PM and CM
4 1 2 5.5
6 1 3 11 1 Highest Project Ma 11 =COUNTIF(A:A;G3)
8 1 6 19 1 0 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
9 1 1 1.5 2 0.5 4 total 19
10 1 2 5.5 5 Step 2:
11 1 4 15 6
2 2 3 11 Project Ma 66 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
3 2 5 17.5 2 0.5 Constructi 36 2
4 2 5 17.5 0 0
6 2 2 5.5
8 2 3 11 C2: =RANK.AVG(B2;B:B;1)
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF 0.848743 Z -0.84874 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.396025 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Labor Productivity PM and CM
2 1 6 14 1 Project manager
4 1 6 14
8 1 2 5 3 2 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
9 1 5 10.5 2 0.5 4 total 19
10 1 5 10.5 5 Step 2:
11 1 1 2 6
2 2 6 14 Project ma 66 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
4 2 2 5 0 0
6 2 3 7.5
8 2 7 18 C2: =RANK.AVG(B2;B:B;1)
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF 0.125748 Z 0.125748 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.899932 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Liquidated Damages PM and CM
4 1 5 10.5 2 0.5
6 1 6 13.5 4 5 1 Highest Project Ma 11 =COUNTIF(A:A;G3)
8 1 4 8.5 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
9 1 3 5.5 4 total 19
10 1 6 13.5 5 Step 2:
11 1 3 5.5 6
2 2 5 10.5 Project Ma 66 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
3 2 6 13.5 Constructi 36 2
4 2 7 17.5 0 0
6 2 7 17.5
8 2 1 2 C2: =RANK.AVG(B2;B:B;1)
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A Project Ma 2 2
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF -0.16782 Z -0.16782 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.866728 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Material Losses PM and CM
1 1 5 12.5 4 5Gender coding
2 1 7 18.5 2 0.5 1 Project manager
4 1 3 4 3 2
8 1 5 12.5 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
9 1 3 4 4 total 19
10 1 7 18.5 5 Step 2:
11 1 2 1.5 2 0.5 6
2 2 4 8 Project ma 66 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
4 2 3 4 0 0
6 2 6 16 3 2
8 2 6 16 C2: =RANK.AVG(B2;B:B;1)
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF -0.21015 Z 0.21015 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.83355 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Overtime PM and CM
4 1 7 16.5
6 1 2 3.5 2 0.5 1 Highest Project ma 11 =COUNTIF(A:A;G3)
7 1 1 1.5 2 0.5 2 Constructi 8
8 1 7 16.5 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
9 1 6 11.5 4 total 19
10 1 3 5 1 0 5 Step 2:
11 1 7 16.5 6
2 2 7 16.5 Project ma 66 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
4 2 1 1.5 0 0
6 2 4 6 1 0
8 2 5 8 C2: =RANK.AVG(B2;B:B;1)
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF 0.718111 Z 0.718111 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.472689 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Reputation Loss PM and CM
4 1 1 2.5
7 1 5 13.5 4 5 2 Constructi 8
8 1 3 8 1 0 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
9 1 4 10 4 total 19
10 1 4 10 5 Step 2:
11 1 5 13.5 6
2 2 1 2.5 Project ma 66 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
4 2 6 16 1 0 0 0
6 2 5 13.5
8 2 2 6 C2: =RANK.AVG(B2;B:B;1)
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
#N/A Project ma -13.5 =M30-$M$7*$M$8/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF -1.13071 Z -1.13071 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.258178 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Schedule Delays PM and CM
2 1 4 14.5 4 5 1 Project Manager
4 1 4 14.5
6 1 5 17.5 2 0.5 1 Highest Project Ma 11 =COUNTIF(A:A;G3)
8 1 1 3 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
9 1 2 7 4 total 19
10 1 1 3 5 Step 2:
11 1 6 19 1 0 6
2 2 2 7 Project Ma 66 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
3 2 3 10.5 Constructi 36 2
4 2 4 14.5 0 0
6 2 1 3
8 2 4 14.5 C2: =RANK.AVG(B2;B:B;1)
0 0
#N/A
#N/A Project Ma 9.954545 109.5 =SUMIF(A:A;G3;C:C)
#N/A
#N/A UDF 44.5 Project Ma 43.5 =N24-M14 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
#N/A Project Ma -0.5 =M30-$M$7*$M$8/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF 0.042126 Z -0.04213 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.966398 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Cost Overruns QM and PM
7 1 1 1.5 2 0.5 2 Project ma 11
1 2 2 6.5 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
2 2 3 12 4 total 18
3 2 2 6.5 5 Step 2:
4 2 2 6.5 6
5 2 4 14.5 2 0.5 7 Lowest Group
6 2 3 12 Quality M 28 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
7 2 2 6.5 Project ma 66 2
8 2 6 18 1 0 0 0
10 2 2 6.5
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Project ma 9.545455 105
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF -0.04757 Z -0.04757 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.962057 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Labor Productivity QM and PM
3 1 4 9 1 0 2 Project manager Step 1: Counts
7 1 6 14 5 10 2 Project ma 11
1 2 6 14 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
2 2 6 14 4 total 18
3 2 3 7.5 5 Step 2:
4 2 6 14 6
6 2 1 2 Quality M 28 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
7 2 6 14 Project ma 66 2
8 2 2 5 0 0
9 2 5 10.5 2 0.5 Step 3: Determine ranks
10 2 5 10.5
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Project ma 10.09091 111
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF -0.59833 Z -0.59833 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.549618 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Liquidated Damages QM and PM
1 1 7 15.5 6 17.5 Gender coding
6 1 3 3.5 4 5 1 Highest Quality M 7 =COUNTIF(A:A;G3)
7 1 4 7 3 2 2 Project ma 11
1 2 4 7 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
2 2 1 1 1 0 4 total 18
3 2 7 15.5 5 Step 2:
4 2 5 9 1 0 6
6 2 6 11 Quality M 28 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
7 2 7 15.5 Project ma 66 2
8 2 4 7 0 0
10 2 6 11
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Project ma 7.954545 87.5
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF 1.583549 Z 1.583549 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.113296 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Material Loss QM and PM
7 1 5 10.5 2 Project ma 11
1 2 5 10.5 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
2 2 7 17 4 total 18
3 2 5 10.5 5 Step 2:
4 2 3 3.5 6
6 2 4 6.5 2 0.5 Quality M 28 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
7 2 4 6.5 Project ma 66 2
8 2 5 10.5 0 0
10 2 7 17
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF 0.697863 Z 0.697863 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.485263 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Overtime QM and PM
3 1 5 9.5 2 0.5 2 Project manager Step 1: Counts
4 1 4 7 3 Construction Manager
7 1 7 16 5 10 2 Project ma 11
1 2 7 16 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
2 2 5 9.5 4 total 18
3 2 6 12 3 2 5 Step 2:
4 2 7 16 6
6 2 2 2.5 Quality M 28 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
7 2 1 1 1 0 Project ma 66 2
8 2 7 16 0 0
10 2 3 4.5
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Project ma 10.68182 117.5
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A Project Ma 13 2
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF -1.19666 Z -1.19666 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.231437 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
4 1 1 4.5
7 1 3 10.5 2 0.5 2 Project ma 11
1 2 1 4.5 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
2 2 2 9 1 0 4 total 18
3 2 4 13 3 2 5 Step 2:
4 2 1 4.5 6
6 2 7 18 1 0 Quality M 28 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
7 2 5 16 Project ma 66 2
8 2 3 10.5 0 0
10 2 4 13
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Quality M 7 49 =SUMIF(A:A;G3;C:C)
#N/A Project ma 11.09091 122
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF -1.66693 Z -1.66693 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.095529 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Schedule Delays QM and PM
7 1 2 5 3 2 2 Project ma 11
1 2 3 7.5 2 0.5 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
2 2 4 10.5 4 total 18
3 2 1 2 3 2 5 Step 2:
4 2 4 10.5 6
6 2 5 13.5 Quality M 28 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
7 2 3 7.5 Project ma 66 2
8 2 1 2 0 0
10 2 1 2
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF 2.070046 Z 2.070046 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.038448 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Cost Overruns QM and CM
4 1 2 4.5
7 1 1 1.5 2 0.5 2 Constructi 8
1 2 4 11 1 0 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
2 2 3 8.5 4 total 15
3 2 5 13.5 5 Step 2:
4 2 5 13.5 6
6 2 2 4.5 Quality M 28 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
8 2 3 8.5 0 0
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF -0.65489 Z -0.65489 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.512541 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Labor Productivity QM and CM
4 1 3 7.5 2 0.5
6 1 7 14 3 2 1 Highest Quality M 7 =COUNTIF(A:A;G3)
7 1 6 11.5 2 0.5 2 Constructi 8
1 2 7 14 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
2 2 6 11.5 4 total 15
3 2 1 1.5 5 Step 2:
4 2 2 4.5 6
6 2 3 7.5 Quality M 28 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
8 2 7 14 0 0
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A Project Ma 3 2
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF -0.3529 Z -0.3529 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.724163 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Liquidated Damages QM and CM
1 1 7 12.5 6 17.5 Gender coding
7 1 4 5 1 0 2 Project ma 8
1 2 3 3.5 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
2 2 5 6 1 0 4 total 15
3 2 6 8 5 Step 2:
4 2 7 12.5 6
6 2 7 12.5 Quality M 28 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
7 2 1 1.5 2 0.5 Project ma 36 2
8 2 1 1.5 0 0
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Project ma 6.6875 53.5
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF 1.262223 Z 1.262223 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.206868 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Material Loss QM and CM
4 1 5 8.5 2 0.5
6 1 6 12 1 Highest Quality M 7 =COUNTIF(A:A;G3)
1 2 2 1 1 0 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
2 2 4 6 3 2 4 total 15
3 2 4 6 5 Step 2:
4 2 3 3 6
6 2 6 12 Quality M 28 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
8 2 6 12 0 0
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF -0.71307 Z 0.713074 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.4758 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Overtime QM and CM
4 1 4 6.5 Construction Manager
7 1 7 14 3 2 2 Constructi 8
1 2 6 12 1 0 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
2 2 7 14 4 total 15
3 2 2 2.5 5 Step 2:
4 2 1 1 1 0 6
6 2 4 6.5 Quality M 28 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
8 2 5 10 0 0
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A Project Ma 6 2
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF -0.70645 Z -0.70645 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.479906 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
7 1 3 9 1 0 2 Constructi 8
1 2 5 11 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
2 2 1 3.5 4 total 15
3 2 7 14.5 2 0.5 5 Step 2:
4 2 6 13 1 0 6
6 2 5 11 Quality M 28 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
7 2 2 7.5 2 0.5 Constructi 36 2
8 2 2 7.5 0 0
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF -2.22392 Z -2.22392 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.026154 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
Managerial opinion Rank ti Ti Mann-Whitney U test Schedule Delays QM and CM
4 1 6 14
7 1 2 3.5 2 0.5 2 Constructi 8
1 2 1 1.5 2 0.5 3 =SUM(M7:M8)
2 2 2 3.5 4 total 15
3 2 3 5.5 2 0.5 5 Step 2:
4 2 4 8.5 6
6 2 1 1.5 Quality M 28 =M7*(M7+1)/2 𝑛□ × 𝑛□ + 1
7 2 5 11.5 Constructi 36 2
8 2 4 8.5 0 0
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A
𝑛□ = 𝑛 □−
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A Group Denom.
𝑛□ −
#N/A
#N/A
#N/A See column D
#N/A
#N/A
See column E
𝑛□ − 𝑛□
□
E2: =IF(D2="";"";(D2^3-D2)/12) 𝑛□ =
12

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □ 𝑛□ − 𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 −1 12
□
UDF -2.1174 Z 2.117403 =M36/M53

𝑛□ × 𝑛 □
𝑛 −2
𝑛 = □ 𝑛𝑛

0.034226 =2*(1-NORMSDIST(ABS(M57)))
7. Complexity in Evaluating Quality Performance
Cronbach’s Alpha Result:
Cronbach Alpha α= Total Number of Items/(Total Number of items – 1)*(1-Sum of Item Variances/Variance Total)
Below is the Likert scale responses received by FM and QM.
Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 Item 11 Item 12
Managerial Type Costs Costs Total cost for Inspection Testing and Factory Tests Repair of Green Indoor humidity Plumbing defects: Installation Power surges 6 Month
accounted with accounted QAQC costs for Extra Balancing for High Building and Mold Growth Water hammer, errors from affecting software Chemical
rectifying non- with personnel for Low Voltage of Water Voltage Technology from Ventilation back-siphonage inexperienced glitches for building and Bacterial
conformance rectifying a specific task Systems Systems Switchgears Defects After sub- automation systems Test of
through non- (Activity- (HVAC and Handover (e.g. contractors causing water Drinking
construction conformance Based Lighting HVAC/Greywater systems' cistern Water
rework through costing) - Control) system/rainwater malfunction Systems
design system)
rework
FM 1 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3
FM 3 4 3 4 4 2 5 1 1 1
FM 3 1 1 1 4 4 3 2 1 1
FM 1 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 2
FM 2 4 5 3 5 4 3 4 3 4
QM 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 4 2 3 3
QM 4 4 3 3 4 5 5 2 4 4 4
QM 5 2 2 3 3 3 3 5 4 5 5
QM 2 4 3 3 4 3 3 5 4 5 5
QM 3 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 3 3 3
QM 2 2 6 4 5 2 2 6 6 6 5
QM 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
QM 4 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 5 4 4
Variances 1.109375 0.6875 1.859375 0.359375 1.359375 0.859375 0.75 1.5 1.359375 1.109375 0.75 1.36
Simple 3 4 6 4 3 4 2 2 1 2 2 3
Complex 5 4 7 9 10 9 11 11 12 11 11 2
Likert Scale
# Items/Questions 11
1 Very Simple
Sum of item
variances 11.7031 2 Somewhat Simple
Variance of Total
Scores 38.9375 3 Neutral
Cronbach's alpha 0.76938 4 Complex
5 Very Complex
6 Not Feasible
8. T-test results for Complexity Comparisons between Managerial types
Power surges affecting software glitches for building

Costs accounted with rectifying non-conformance Inspection costs for Extra Low Voltage Systems automation systems causing water systems' cistern Installation errors from inexperienced sub-
through design rework (HVAC and Lighting Control) malfunction contractors
Mean 4.285714286 Mean 4 Mean 4.166666667 Mean 3.333333333
Variance 0.904761905 Variance 1 Variance 2.166666667 Variance 1.80952381
Observations 7 Observations 15 Observations 6 Observations 15

Hypothesized Mean Hypothesized Mean Hypothesized Mean Hypothesized Mean
Difference 3 Difference 3 Difference 3 Difference 3
df 6 df 14 df 5 df 14
t Stat 3.576237364 t Stat 3.872983346 t Stat 1.941450687 t Stat 0.95971487
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.005847982 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000844637 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.054933251 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.176740632
t Critical one-tail 1.943180281 t Critical one-tail 1.761310136 t Critical one-tail 2.015048373 t Critical one-tail 1.761310136
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.011695964 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.001689273 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.109866501 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.353481264
t Critical two-tail 2.446911851 t Critical two-tail 2.144786688 t Critical two-tail 2.570581836 t Critical two-tail 2.144786688
Costs accounted with rectifying non-conformance Inspection costs for Extra Low Voltage Systems Total cost for QAQC personnel for a specific task Plumbing defects: Water hammer, back-
through construction rework (HVAC and Lighting Control) (Activity-Based costing) siphonage (FM Only)
Mean 3.666666667 Mean 4.166666667 Mean 4.266666667 Mean 3.5
Variance 1.5 Variance 1.766666667 Variance 1.780952381 Variance 0.7

Hypothesized Mean Hypothesized Mean Hypothesized Mean
Hypothesized Mean 3 Difference 3 Difference 3 Difference 3
df 8 df 5 df 14 df 5
t Stat 1.632993162 t Stat 2.150032909 t Stat 3.676053452 t Stat 1.463850109
Total cost for QAQC personnel for a specific task Indoor Humidity and Mould Growth (FM
(Activity-Based costing) Both Groups Factory Tests for High Voltage Switchgears Indoor Humidity and Mould Growth QM Only Only)

df 14 df 14 df 7 df 4
t Stat 3.676053452 t Stat 3.292219567 t Stat 0.283654314 t Stat 1
Total cost for QAQC personnel for a specific task Inspection costs for Extra Low Voltage Systems Indoor Humidity and Mould Growth (QM
(Activity-Based costing) FM Only (HVAC and Lighting Control) Indoor Humidity and Mould Growth FM Only Only)

df 5 df 5 df 4 df 7
t Stat 4.567501392 t Stat 2.150032909 t Stat 1 t Stat 0.283654314
Repair of Green building technology defects after
Total cost for QAQC personnel for a specific task Indoor humidity and Mold Growth from Ventilation 6 Month Chemical and Bacterial Test of
handover (HVAC/greywater system/rainwater
(Activity-Based costing) QM Only (Both groups) Drinking Water Systems
system
Mean 4 Mean 2.875 Mean 3.266666667 Mean 4.333333333

df 7 df 7 df 14 df 5
t Stat 1.870828693 t Stat -0.283654314 t Stat 0.888106072 t Stat 2
Power surges affecting software glitches for

Inspection Cost for Extra Low Voltage Systems (HVAC
building automation systems causing water Testing and Balancing of Water Systems
and Lighting Controls QM Only
systems' cistern malfunction
Mean 4 Mean 3.4 Mean 3.733333333
Variance 0.571428571 Variance 1.685714286 Variance 1.20952381
Observations 8 Observations 15 Observations 15

Hypothesized Mean Hypothesized Mean Hypothesized Mean
Difference 3 Difference 3 Difference 3
df 7 df 14 df 14
t Stat 3.741657387 t Stat 1.193201078 t Stat 2.582497113
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.003623495 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.126309971 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.010851896
t Critical one-tail 1.894578605 t Critical one-tail 1.761310136 t Critical one-tail 1.761310136
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.00724699 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.252619942 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.021703791
t Critical two-tail 2.364624252 t Critical two-tail 2.144786688 t Critical two-tail 2.144786688

Supplementary Information Statistics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Supplementary Information Statistics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supporting Information for the Article:

Managerial Practitioners’ Perspectives on Quality Performance of Green

Summary of Questionnaire Results in the Article

Years of experience in construction industry in general:

How many years of experience have you been

Years of experience in green buildings in particular

How long have you been involved with green

Which entity do you represent?

What is your role in the project?

Project Type PM CM QM SM FM Total

Project Size in USD PM CM QM SM FM

Delivery System Type

Cost Reimbursable/Cost plus

Guaranteed Maximum Price

Other (please specify)

Green certification Types Pursued

Certification Type PM QM* FM Total

4. Quality Control and Assurance Awareness

Quality Assurance: “Owner/owner representative conducting planned, systematic actions to

“Design or construction professional conducting plans, procedures, resources and organisation

Ho is that there is no difference between managerial type and correct

5. Ranking of Quality Consequences

Rank 1: Greatest priority consequence that the manager influences

Rank 7: Lowest priority consequence that the manager influences

Relative Importance Index Calculations

6. Mann Whitney Test

Quality Failure Asymptotic Significance (2-tailed) of Pairwise Comparison

Step 10: Determine denominator (= SE)

denominator 8.50098 =SQRT(M7*M8/(M9*(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

UDF -2.1174 Z 2.117403 =M36/M53

UDF 0.034226 sig 0.034226 =2*(1-NORM.S.DIST(ABS(M57);TRUE))

Sum Ti 20.5 =SUM(E:E) 𝑛 = □ 𝑛□

Step 10: Determine denominator (= SE)

denominator 8.318654 =SQRT(M7*M8/(M9*(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

UDF -2.22392 Z -2.22392 =M36/M53

UDF 0.026154 sig 0.026154 =2*(1-NORM.S.DIST(ABS(M57);TRUE))

Sum Ti 9.5 =SUM(E:E) 𝑛 = □ 𝑛□

Step 10: Determine denominator (= SE)

denominator 8.493134 =SQRT(M7*M8/(M9*(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

UDF -0.70645 Z -0.70645 =M36/M53

UDF 0.479906 sig 0.479906 =2*(1-NORM.S.DIST(ABS(M57);TRUE))

Sum Ti 14.5 =SUM(E:E) 𝑛 = □ 𝑛□

Step 10: Determine denominator (= SE)

denominator 8.414274 =SQRT(M7*M8/(M9*(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

UDF -0.71307 Z 0.713074 =M36/M53

UDF 0.4758 sig 0.4758 =2*(1-NORM.S.DIST(ABS(M57);TRUE))

Sum Ti 20.5 =SUM(E:E) 𝑛 = □ 𝑛□

Step 10: Determine denominator (= SE)

denominator 8.318654 =SQRT(M7*M8/(M9*(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

UDF 1.262223 Z 1.262223 =M36/M53

UDF 0.206868 sig 0.206868 =2*(1-NORM.S.DIST(ABS(M57);TRUE))

Step 10: Determine denominator (= SE)

denominator 8.50098 =SQRT(M7*M8/(M9*(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

UDF -0.3529 Z -0.3529 =M36/M53

UDF 0.724163 sig 0.724163 =2*(1-NORM.S.DIST(ABS(M57);TRUE))

Sum Ti 15.5 =SUM(E:E) 𝑛 = □ 𝑛□

Step 10: Determine denominator (= SE)

denominator 8.398413 =SQRT(M7*M8/(M9*(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

UDF -0.65489 Z -0.65489 =M36/M53

UDF 0.512541 sig 0.512541 =2*(1-NORM.S.DIST(ABS(M57);TRUE))

Step 10: Determine denominator (= SE)

denominator 10.86932 =SQRT(M7*M8/(M9*(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

denominator 8.50098 =SQRT(M7M8/(M9(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

denominator 8.318654 =SQRT(M7M8/(M9(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

denominator 8.493134 =SQRT(M7M8/(M9(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

denominator 8.414274 =SQRT(M7M8/(M9(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

denominator 8.318654 =SQRT(M7M8/(M9(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

denominator 8.50098 =SQRT(M7M8/(M9(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

denominator 8.398413 =SQRT(M7M8/(M9(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

denominator 10.86932 =SQRT(M7M8/(M9(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

denominator 10.49837 =SQRT(M7M8/(M9(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

denominator 10.86353 =SQRT(M7M8/(M9(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

denominator 10.74709 =SQRT(M7M8/(M9(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

denominator 10.73538 =SQRT(M7M8/(M9(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

denominator 10.86353 =SQRT(M7M8/(M9(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

denominator 10.51034 =SQRT(M7M8/(M9(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

denominator 11.86917 =SQRT(M7M8/(M9(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

denominator 11.93942 =SQRT(M7M8/(M9(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

denominator 11.83661 =SQRT(M7M8/(M9(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

denominator 11.89624 =SQRT(M7M8/(M9(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

denominator 11.91785 =SQRT(M7M8/(M9(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

denominator 11.92864 =SQRT(M7M8/(M9(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

denominator 11.78214 =SQRT(M7M8/(M9(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

denominator 11.78214 =SQRT(M7M8/(M9(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))

denominator 11.92864 =SQRT(M7M8/(M9(M9-1))*((M9^3-M9)/12-M49))