The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1726-0531.htm

JEDT
18,2 Contractors’ perceptions of the
effects of cash flow on
construction projects
308 Emmanuel Dele Omopariola
Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment, University of Cape Town,
Received 15 April 2019 Rondebosch, South Africa
Revised 8 July 2019
Accepted 28 July 2019
Abimbola Windapo
Department of Construction Economics and Management,
University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
David John Edwards
School of Engineering and the Built Environment, Birmingham City University,
Birmingham, UK and University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa, and
Wellington Didibhuku Thwala
Department of Construction Management and Quantity Surveying,
University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to evaluate Nigerian contractors’ perceptions regarding the effects of positive
and negative cash flow during construction projects, with a view to establishing effective strategies for cash
flow management.
Design/methodology/approach – A desktop-based literature review is used to develop a cross-sectional
questionnaire survey which uses Likert items to elicit responses from construction professionals on: the
reasons for cash flow problems; the impacts of negative and positive cash flow; and the potential solutions for
improving cash flow on construction projects.
Findings – The study finds that delay in payments, difficulty in obtaining financial aid and
inadequate budgetary control are the causes of cash flow problems during construction projects.
Cumulatively, these issues result in project delays, reduced profit margins and in the worst scenarios,
abandoned projects.
Originality/value – There has been limited research into the effects of positive and negative cash flows on
construction projects in Nigeria and indeed, the wider geographical location of West Africa. This study
addresses this observed dearth and consequently advances methods and solutions to deal with the problem of
poor cash flow management in the Nigerian construction industry.
Keywords Cash flow, Construction industry, Construction projects, Contractors,
Project management
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Journal of Engineering, Design
and Technology
Globally, construction projects are led and managed by various stakeholders (such as
Vol. 18 No. 2, 2020
pp. 308-325
clients, contractors, consultants, shareholders and regulators) who work together as a single
© Emerald Publishing Limited project management team entity (Aje et al., 2015; Navon, 2005; Salami and Mustapha, 2015).
1726-0531
DOI 10.1108/JEDT-04-2019-0099 The construction industry is not only essential for improving the quality of life of citizens
through the provision of social and economic infrastructures but also important in Cash flow on
generating wealth and contributes significantly to Gross National Product (GNP) (Oke et al., construction
2016; Windapo and Cattel, 2013). The industry is inextricably embedded within the whole
spectrum of an economy and has a multiplier effect that enables other industries (such as
projects
manufacturing) to prosper (Ameh and Odusami, 2002; Oforeh and Alufohai, 2000). Within
Nigeria, the construction sector accounted for 5.8 per cent of GDP in 1981 but declined to 1.4
per cent of GDP in 2013 (Nigeria Country Report, 2013). The notable decrease in the
contribution of the Nigerian construction sector towards its GDP reveals a deep-seated 309
problem. This is further emphasised by the fact that Nigeria’s total GDP has increased by
about 495 times its size since 1981, whereas the construction sector’s GDP contribution has
only grown by 125 times its size. Remarkably, the key drivers of Nigeria’s GDP over the past
three decades have remained largely unchanged, namely, agriculture (crop production),
crude oil production and wholesale and retail trade, while the contribution of the
construction sector is comparatively insignificant (Nigeria Country Report, 2013). Yet,
Nigeria’s construction industry continues to occupy a vital position in the nation’s economy
and as a provider of the buildings and infrastructure needed to ensure continued economic
growth and prosperity (Aibinu and Jagboro, 2002).
Against this backdrop, the industry is beset with the perennial problems of cost
overruns, abandoned projects and company failure (Benaitiene and Audrius, 2012;
Nwachukwu and Emoh, 2011). Indeed, the Nigerian construction industry seems to be
ensnared with the menace of abandonment (Alao et al., 2018). Completing projects within
cost is a primary objective of clients (Adediran and Windapo, 2017). “Project success” means
that certain aspects for a specified stakeholder are met (Alao et al., 2018), whether from the
perspective of the developer, engineer, contractor, promoter or members of the public
(Purnus and Bodea, 2017; Windapo et al., 2017). However, due to the complex project
procurement and implementation environment (Windapo et al., 2017) and unmanaged cash
flow problems (Odeyinka and Yusif, 1997; Odeh and Battaineth, 2002) construction projects
are often deemed unsuccessful in meeting the aspirations set at project commencement. A
major criticism facing the Nigerian construction industry is the failure to use methods and
techniques that will improve cash flow management (Abubakar et al., 2016). Acquiring a
comprehensive awareness of these methods and techniques is essential to the successful
management of a construction business (Nwanyanwu, 2015; Odeyinka et al., 2008).
The risk of contracting businesses becoming insolvent can largely be attributed to poor
financial management strategies, especially inadequate attention to cash flow management
at the organisational level (Abubakar et al., 2016; Arditi et al., 2000; Lowe, 1997; Ugochukwu
and Onyekwena, 2014). This concurs with the prior research of Sherif and Kaka (2003) who
find that cash flow management is critical for contractors to successfully deliver projects in
the construction industry. According to Peer (1982) and Singh and Lakanathan (1992), the
appropriate management of cash flow is a vital tool and essential to the continued health
and stability of the construction industry because liquidity serves as the primary resource
for running successful project organisations. Forecasting cash flow requirements and
setting aside suitable provisions is of critical necessity for providing financial stability
during periods of insufficient cash resources (Harris and McCaffer, 2001). According to
Harris and McCaffer (2006), cash flow forecasting provides an excellent early warning
system to ensure that the organisation continues to meet its financial demands, since
anything outside these demands could result in the company’s potential liquidation. The
issues that disrupt cash flow are myriad and include: payment delays; changes to orders;
profit margins; retention conditions; and credit arrangements with suppliers (Park, 2004).
These issues must be effectively and efficiently managed by parties to the contract.
JEDT This study seeks to evaluate the effects of cash flow on Nigerian construction projects
18,2 and the approaches used for its management. A concomitant objective is to determine
whether there is a significant difference in the perceptions of contractors regarding the
effects of positive and negative cash flow on construction projects. The overarching
ambition of this work is to educate construction practitioners, private investors and
government stakeholders on the risks posed and suggest acceptable solutions to these.
310
2. Literature review
2.1 The concept of cash flow
Cash flow represents the life-blood of an organisation because without it, outstanding
financial obligations cannot be met (Arafat and Skaik, 2016). A company must have
sufficient working capital to pay its creditors, suppliers, subcontractors and employees and
may be reliant on its clients’ payments to cover these expenditure items (Lowe and Moroke,
2010). Huggins (2013) aptly notes that whilst revenue is vanity, cash flow is sanity and cash
is king, constituting an essential construction company resource. The significance of cash
flow is related to cash as the primary source of every successful construction project (Sherif
and Kaka, 2003). A stable financial performance, achieved through productive cash flow
analysis, creates the potential for construction organisations to exploit their investment
opportunities (Seo et al., 2018). Finance is the fuel that energises business, and a firm’s cash
flow is one of the most significant indicators of that company’s financial strength as it
impacts upon both performance and profitability (Tam, 2002; Naoum, 2003; Beatham et al.,
2004).
Cash flow is of particular importance to the contractor because it is a reflection of a
project’s financial performance prior to the contract being completed and the final account
settled (Usman et al., 2016). Irregularities in cash flow can cause capital lock-up and
constitute a triggering factor for insolvency which may end up disrupting the planned
project programme (Lowe and Moroke, 2010). Cash flow comprises two components: inflows
and outflows (Omag, 2016). Cash inflows derive from the company’s operational, investment
and financing activities such as receipt of a bank loan; increased bank overdrafts;
shareholder investment; interest from savings and investments; and payment for goods or
services from customers (Lowe and Moroke, 2010). Cash outflows include payment of
wages; rent and daily operating expenses; purchases of stock, raw materials and supplies;
dividend payments or servicing any debt held; loan repayments; and the purchase of fixed
assets including plant, machinery, vehicles and office furniture (Bhandari and Iyer, 2013;
Berry, 2011). Jabbari et al. (2013) and Omag (2016) classify cash flow into two dichotomous
groupings: positive and negative. Positive cash flow occurs when the company’s cash inflow
exceeds its outflow, providing an indicator that the company is in good financial health.
Negative cash flow occurs when the cash outflow surpasses the cash inflow and is indicative
of a company in financial difficulty.

2.2 Cash flow problems

According to Onukwube (2005), Ward (2000) and Lowe (1997), there are five major reasons
for cash flow problems:
(1) insufficient cash flow analysis of inflows and outflows;
(2) delays in payments from clients who do not honour interim certificates when due,
thereby reducing the amount of cash resources available to contractors to carry on
with the work;
 (3) difficulties faced by contractors in obtaining financial support in the form of bank Cash flow on
loans and overdrafts when funds are required; construction
(4) poor budgetary control; and projects
(5) inadequate supplier management (e.g. over charging and the inability of suppliers
to deliver their goods and services at the time required).

Other reasons proffered within extant literature include design changes and non-availability 311
of specified materials (Lowe, 1997; Onukwube, 2005; Lowe and Moroke, 2010). In response to
these financial challenges, Zainudeen et al. (2010) suggest that bank loans, retained profits
and hire purchase are common methods used to mitigate cash flow problems.

2.3 Cash flow forecasting

Williams and Jeongwoo (2010) and Navon (1996) describe cash flow forecasting as a method
for ascertaining future cash excesses or shortages. Firms that have productive cash flow
analysis invest more on construction projects, which attracts the attention of major
stakeholders and avails the growth opportunity (Habib and Huang, 2019). Cash flow
forecasting involves producing a suitable financial forecast that can be compared against
actual progress on site and the associated outlay of expenditure (RICS, 2014; Lowe, 1997;
Russell, 1991). Accurate cash flow forecasting allows contractors to envisage peaks and
troughs in their cash balances (Akinola, 2010; and RICS, 2014) and helps them to strategise
borrowing or management of surplus funds throughout the project’s duration (Abdul-
Rahman et al., 2009). Previous studies recognise the need for contractors to prepare a
comprehensive construction plan at the project inception stage as a guideline for monitoring
and controlling of work progress; as a result, countless cash flow forecasting techniques
have been developed (Buertey and Adjei-Kumi, 2012; Garner, 2012; Khosrowshahi and
Kaka, 2007; Usman et al., 2016).

2.4 Effects of positive and negative cash flow on construction project delivery
Nwachukwu and Emoh (2011) proffer that the effect of positive cash flow on a construction
project is the successful and timely completion of that project. Positive cash flow ensures
that there is adequate funding for the procurement of construction resources, namely,
labour, materials and plant (Edwards et al., 2017). This is particularly pertinent for materials
that have to be ordered in advance, such as specialist materials, prefabricated units and
those that have to be imported (Omag, 2016). Reliability indicators provided by lending
institutions, such as financial stability and creditworthiness, help contractors to secure the
required cash flow to run their construction business and deal efficiently with unpredicted
situations (such as tax increases on materials) (Adjeil et al., 2018; Omopariola et al., 2017).
Preserving a good historical track record of adequate financial stability, stemming from
regular cash flow, enables the contractor to gain access to loans or overdrafts when
necessary (and at a preferential rate) (Seo et al., 2018; Zainudeen et al., 2010). Securing
regular cash flow throughout the project’s life-cycle promotes the forging of a stronger
contractor-client relationship and healthier long-term business relationship (Dahunsi, 2010;
Nwachukwu and Emoh, 2011). Regular and timely cash flows between the client and
contractor also safeguard the efficient delivery of the construction project (Abdul-Rahman
et al., 2006; Kumar et al., 2018). Hwee and Tiong (2002) further posit that proper cash flow
administration is the most important factor that can affect the profitability of a project.
According to Abdul-Rahman et al. (2006) and Abdul-Rahman et al. (2009) the effects of
irregular cash flow on construction projects comprise: delays in completion time; capital
JEDT lock-up; insolvency; litigation/arbitration; and project abandonment/failed projects.
18,2 Irregular cash flow therefore poses a significant threat to a successful project delivery
(Odeyinka et al., 2008; Mahamid et al., 2012; Sambasivan and Soon, 2007). Regarding capital
lock-up, contractors either have to borrow money to meet their obligations or remove funds
from the company’s reserves, thereby depriving the cash of its interest-earning capabilities
(Adjeil et al., 2018; Asante, 2014; Omopariola et al., 2017). Contractors become insolvent
312 when the business has insufficient assets to cover its debts, or when they are unable to pay
their debts when due (PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2009; Lowe, 1997). Insolvency amongst
construction companies is attributed to inadequate financial management strategies and
lack of consideration towards cash flow management processes (Calvert, 1986; Clough and
Sears, 1994; Boussabaine and Kaka, 1998; Harris and McCaffer, 2001).
Contractual disputes also impact upon cash flow. Oke et al. (2016) establish that
construction projects are faced with numerous, simple to complex issues that range from
late payments to litigation. This supports the notion of Danuri et al. (2006) and Kennedy
(2005) that cash flow problems and poor management of cash flow are the main subjects of
disputes (Lowe, 1997). This can lead to financial adversity if these disputes result in
arbitration or litigation (Bob, 2005). Furthermore, late resolution of disputes will also result
in project abandonment and failed projects caused by the high level of interest rates that
give rise to cash flow problems (Khosrowshahi and Kaka, 2007).

3. Research approach
An empirical methodological approach was adopted to evaluate the effects of positive and
negative cash flow on construction projects. Primary data were collected using a well-
structured questionnaire that was distributed to 143 construction companies registered with
the Federation of Construction Industry (FOCI), Nigeria. This Federation represents the
construction companies that exhibit sustained excellence, sound practices and respect for
ethics in the Nigerian construction industry. Questionnaires were self-administered and
distributed via email. Phone calls and automated reminders were used to follow-up on the
respondents so as to ensure a timely response. The research proposed the following
hypothesis to guide the study’s direction:

H0. There is no significant difference in the perception of contractors regarding the

effects of positive and negative cash flow on construction projects.
H1. There is a significant difference in the perception of contractors regarding the
effects of positive and negative cash flow on construction projects.
A total of 96 completed questionnaires were received and found suitable for analysis,
representing a response rate of 67.13 per cent which is considered adequate (Plano Clark and
Creswell, 2015; Yin, 2009). Questions posed sought to investigate: the reasons for cash flow
problems; the sources of cash inflows and outflows; the effects of positive and negative cash
flow on construction projects; and how capital is augmented when experiencing cash flow
problems. A potential limitation is that this study assumes that cash flow problems on
construction projects are a reality during the project’s life-cycle and although their effect
cannot be prevented entirely, they can be controlled, minimised and improved positively
where necessary. To study this phenomenon, the various dimensions of cash flow were
examined on different construction projects over a five year period (2012 to 2016). The
structured questionnaire used in the study was divided into two sections (A and B). Section
A collected respondents’ background information with regards to their qualifications,
experience, employer, etc. Section B probed past completed projects and asked respondents
to rate the reasons for cash flow problems (using a five-point Likert item scale), the effects of Cash flow on
positive and negative cash flows on construction projects and the methods for improving construction
cash flow.
The data collected were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistical techniques
projects
such as percentile and mean score methods. The mean score was used to rank the sources of
cash flow in the construction industry, the causes of cash flow problems on construction
projects, and the effects of cash flow on construction projects. Kruskal–Wallis test was used
to test the hypothesis and analyse the degree to which the perceptions of contractors vary on 313
the effects of positive and negative cash flow on construction projects. This was informed by
the significant differences in the financial capacity of large, medium and small firms (Tucker
et al., 2015). Cross-tabulation was used to analyze the usage of cash flow analysis and capital
to supplement cash flow difficulties, based on company sizes. According to Chew et al.
(2008), it is essential to examine the internal reliability and check the level of co-variation
amid the measurement items. The use of Cronbach’s alpha was therefore used to confirm
the internal reliability and was found to be 0.810 which was considered acceptable when
aligned to the 0.60 recommended by Nandakumar (2008) or 0.55 as recommended by Van de
Ven and Ferry (1979).

4. Data presentation, analysis and discussion

Information collected on respondents’ background details is presented in Table I and
reveals that 60 per cent of the companies studied were deemed small sized, 26 per cent
medium sized and 14 per cent large sized. The boundaries between small, medium and
large were defined and delineated based on the number of employees. Of the types of
projects undertaken, 54 per cent of the construction companies carried out building
projects works, 15 per cent handles heavy civil engineering projects and 31 per cent
undertook both building and heavy civil engineering projects. Regarding academic
qualifications, 41 per cent of respondents held a Bachelor of Science/Bachelor of
Technology (BSc/B.Tech) degree, 43 per cent held a Higher National Diploma (HND) and
16 per cent a Masters of Science/Masters of Technology (MSc/M.Tech) degree. For
professional membership, 74 per cent of the respondents were corporate members of a
professional body, 23 per cent were graduate members and 3 per cent were fellow
members. In terms of professional occupation, 38 per cent of respondents were quantity
surveyors, 32 per cent were civil engineers and 30 per cent architects. Summary
statistical analysis also revealed that in 54 per cent of the participating construction
companies the estimating department was responsible for the preparation of cash flow
statements in their respective organisations, followed by 35 per cent and 11 per cent for
the planning and technical departments respectively.

4.1 Periodic usage of cash flow analysis

To examine the periodic usage of cash flow analysis, respondents were asked to rate their
usage level on a weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual basis. Table II illustrates that 39 per
cent of respondents use cash flow analysis annually and 30 per cent quarterly, while only 17
per cent make use of cash flow analysis on a monthly basis and 14 per cent on a weekly
basis. It is also apparent that large firms are more likely to perform cash flow analysis on an
annual scale than small and medium firms.

4.2 Methods of mitigating cash flow problems

To evaluate the methods used to alleviate cash flow problems, respondents were asked to
indicate:
JEDT Background details Frequency (%)
18,2
Company size
Small 58 60
Medium 25 26
Large 13 14
Total 96 100
314
Types of project undertaken
Building 52 54
Civil engineering 14 15
Building and civil engineering 30 31
Total 96 100
Academic qualification
HND 32 33
B.Sc./B.Tech. 42 44
M.Sc./M.Tech 22 23
PhD 0 0
Total 96 100
Professional qualification
Fellow 3 3
Corporate member 71 74
Graduate 22 23
Total 96 100
Official designation
Architect 29 30
Quantity surveyor 36 38
Consultant mechanical and electrical engineer 31 32
Others not disclosed 0 0
Total 96 100
Department
Planning 34 35
Estimating 52 54
Table I. Technical 10 11
Respondents’ Others 0 0
background details Total 96 100

Company size Weekly Monthly Quarterly Annually Total

Large 3 2 3 5 13
Medium 2 6 9 8 25
Table II. Small 8 8 17 25 58
Periodic usage of Total 13 16 29 38 96
cash flow analysis (%) 14 17 30 39 100

 the capital sources used to augment their cash resources on projects;

 the sources of cash inflows and outflows in the construction industry; and
 the causes of cash flow problems during construction projects (Tables III, IV and V).
Table III reveals that 69 per cent of the firms take a bank loan to augment cash flow
problems; while 31 per cent of the firms use their retained profit to augment cash flow
resources on projects. However, none of the firms use hire purchase to augment their Cash flow on
cash resources on a project. These findings indicate that most of these firms may not construction
analyse cash flow appropriately to anticipate potential problems during the course of
project execution, and that most of the income/profit made on the projects is taken by
projects
the banks.
Regards the sources of cash flow within construction, Table IV illustrates that the
highest rated source of cash inflow is payment for goods and services from customers (with a
mean score of 4.61), and purchase of stock and raw materials (with a mean score of 4.62) is 315
the highest ranked source of cash outflow. This could be interpreted that project payments
received by contractors are barely enough to cover the procurement of raw materials. The
leading cause of cash flow issues during construction projects, as indicated by respondents
and presented in Table V, is delays in payments to the contractors (with a mean score of 4.72).
The next significant cause of cash flow problems is difficulty in obtaining financial aid (with

Company size Bank loan/overdraft Retained profit Hire purchase Total

Large 9 4 0 13
Medium 16 9 0 25 Table III.
Small 41 17 0 58 Sources of capital
Total 66 30 0 96 used to augment cash
(%) 69 31 0 100 flow problems

Sources of cashflow N Mean score Rank

Sources of cash inflow

Payment for goods and services from customers 96 4.61 1
Interest on savings and investments 96 4.41 2
Receipt of bank loan 96 4.23 3
Shareholder investments 96 3.84 4
Increased bank overdraft 96 2.88 5
Sources of cash outflow
Purchase of stock and raw materials 96 4.62 1
Payment of wages and salaries 96 4.42 2
Income tax, VAT and other taxes 96 4.35 3
Purchase of fixed assets and office furniture 96 4.02 4 Table IV.
Loan repayment 96 3.83 5 Sources of cash flow
Dividend repayment 96 3.20 6 in the construction
Reduced overdraft facilities 96 3.00 7 industry

Causes of cash flow problems N Mean score Rank

Delays in payments to the contractor 96 4.72 1

Difficulties in obtaining financial aid 96 4.61 2 Table V.
Inadequate budgetary control 96 4.54 3 Causes of cash flow
Poor credit control 96 3.80 4 problems during
Inadequate supplier management 96 3.74 5 construction projects
JEDT a mean score of 4.61). This finding suggests that contractors in Nigeria might not have
18,2 access to adequate financial support for their operations.

4.3 Effects of positive and negative cash flow on construction projects

The analyse the impact of cash flow on construction projects its effects were allocated to
either positive cash flows or negative cash flows (see Table VI). Positive cash flows are
316 indicated as having the following significant effects on construction projects: adequate
planning and execution of the project (mean score = 4.23); availability of sufficient cash to
meet demands (mean score = 4.20); timely completion of the project (mean score = 4.15),
proper utilization of cash resources (mean score = 4.03); and reliability indicator for lending
institutions (mean score = 4.01). Conversely, negative cash flows are identified as having the
following adverse effects: capital lock-up (mean score = 4.28); delay in project completion time
(mean score = 4.24); project abandonment (mean score = 4.19); reduction in profit margin
(mean score = 4.14); additional (increased) costs (mean score = 4.07); and litigation/
arbitration (mean score = 4.02). Capital lock-up and delay in project completion time could
occur due to the delays in payments to contractors identified in Table V which are capable of
affecting cash flow negatively. Also, project abandonment could cause contractors to
haemorrhage financial losses, which can also be interpreted as a negative impact on cash
flow.

4.4 Test of hypothesis

The Kruskal–Wallis H test was conducted to identify any significant differences in the
perception of stakeholders with regards to the effects of positive and negative cash flow on
construction projects and the results are presented in Tables VII and VIII, grouped by the
size of the surveyed companies. With regard to positive cash flow, Table VII illustrates that
there is a statistically significant difference at 0.05 confidence level in adequate planning and
execution of projects ( x 2(2) = 6.446, p = 0.040), with a mean score of 45.88 for large firms,
37.60 for medium firms and 53.04 for small firms. The degree of freedom (Df) is determined
by the number of subjects in the grouping variable (i.e. the company size distribution into
large, medium and small) minus 1 (3 – 1) = 2. Based on these results, it can be deduced that
there is a significant difference in the perception of the respondents regarding the effects of
positive cash flow on adequate planning and execution of projects, while there is no

Effects upon cashflow N Mean score Rank

Effects of positive cash flow

Adequate planning and execution of the project 96 4.23 1
Availability of sufficient cash to meet demands 96 4.20 2
Timely completion of the project 96 4.15 3
Proper utilisation of cash resources 96 4.03 4
Reliability indicator for lending institutions 96 4.01 5
Effects of negative cash flow
Capital lock-up 96 4.28 1
Delay in project completion time 96 4.24 2
Table VI.
Project abandonment 96 4.19 3
Effects of positive Reduction in profit margin 96 4.14 4
and negative cash Additional (increased) costs 96 4.07 5
flows on construction Litigation/arbitration 96 4.02 6
projects Lack of incentive 96 3.78 7
 Size of Level of
Cash flow on
Effects of positive cash flow companya No. Mean rank Kruskal–Wallis Hb Dfc significance construction
projects
Adequate planning and execution Large 13 45.88 6.446 2 0.040
of the project Medium 25 37.60
Small 58 53.04
Total 96
Proper utilisation of cash resources Large 13 44.31 0.447 2 0.800 317
Medium 25 46.98
Small 58 49.29
Total 96
Reliability indicator to lending Large 13 54.96 2.207 2 0.332
Table VII.
institutions Medium 25 48.98
Small 58 45.98 Results of test to
Total 96 identify any
Availability of sufficient cash to Large 13 46.92 2.566 2 0.277 significant
meet demands Medium 25 54.48 differences in
Small 58 45.40 respondents’
Total 96 perceptions of the
Timely completion of the project Large 13 42.62 1.469 2 0.480 effects of positive
Medium 25 42.96 cash flow on
Small 58 51.44
construction projects
Total 96
(distributed by
Notes: Key: aGrouping variable: company size; bKruskal-Wallis H test; cDf (degree of freedom) – number of respondents and
subjects within the grouping variable (company size) minus 1 (3 1) = 2 company size)

statistical significant difference in the perceptions of respondents regarding the effects of

cash flow for: proper utilization of cash resources; reliable indicator to lending institutions;
availability of sufficient cash to meet demands; and timely completion of project. The findings
suggest that the respondents are in agreement on four of the five effects of positive cash
flows on successful construction projects.
Application of the Kruskal–Wallis H test to negative cash flows (Table VIII) reveals that
there is a statistically significant difference in: delay in completion time ( x 2(2) = 5.868,
p = 0.050), with a mean score of 40.04 for large firms, 49.58 for medium firms and 49.12 for
small firms and reduction in profit margin ( x 2(2) = 6.969, p = 0.031), with a mean score of
62.12 for large firms, 50.74 for medium firms and 43.58 for small firms. Based on these
findings, the null hypothesis which states that “there is no difference in the perception of
contractors on the effects of negative cash flow on construction projects” is rejected, while
the alternate hypothesis that “there is a significant difference in the perception of
respondents” was accepted for additional (increased) cost, capital lock-up, abandoning of the
project, litigation/arbitration and lack of incentive.

5. Discussion of findings
The study reveals that while all participating firms perform cash flow analysis annually,
performance on a weekly or monthly basis occurs less frequently. Cash flow analysis
provides a useful forecasting system for ensuring that organisations can meet financial
demands. Moreover, it provides information to clients, creditors, management and others
that will assist them in evaluating the company’s ability to generate future cash flows
(Mulenga and Bhatia, 2017). The success of a project, i.e. if it is productive in the allocated
JEDT Level of
18,2 Effects of negative cash flow Size of companya No. Mean rank Kruskal–Wallis Hb Dfc significance

Delay in completion time Large 13 40.04 5.868 2 0.050

Medium 25 49.58
Small 58 49.12
Total 96
318 Reduction in profit margin Large 13 62.12 6.969 2 0.031
Medium 25 50.74
Small 58 43.58
Total 96
Additional (increased) cost Large 13 64.08 0.110 2 0.947
Medium 25 50.04
Small 58 43.44
Total 96
Capital lock-up Large 13 49.54 3.657 2 0.161
Medium 25 48.76
Small 58 47.32
Total 96
Project abandonment Large 13 45.46 0.549 2 0.760
Table VIII.
Medium 25 40.38
Results of test to Small 58 51.92
identify any Total 95
significant Litigation/Arbitration Large 13 52.88 2.064 2 0.356
differences in Medium 25 47.66
respondents’ Small 58 47.04
perceptions of the Total 96
effects of negative Lack of incentive Large 13 41.69 0.447 2 0.800
cash flow on Medium 25 44.40
Small 58 51.02
construction projects
Total 96
(distributed by
respondents and Notes: Key: aGrouping variable: company size; bKruskal–Wallis H test; cDf (degree of freedom) – number
company size) of subjects within the grouping variable (company size) minus 1 (3 1) = 2

time and cost, is regularly determined by its cash flow analysis (Kumar et al., 2018; Maravas
and Pantouvakis, 2012). The implication is that when cash flow analysis is not undertaken
by firms at appropriate times, the result could be a breakdown or inefficiency of financial
systems, which could eventually lead to insolvency (Lowe and Moroke, 2010; Khosrowshahi
and Kaka, 2007). Moreover, when companies perform productive cash flow analysis, it assists
them in increasing investment on construction projects thus attracting the attention of major
stakeholders and availing the growth opportunity (Habib and Huang, 2019). The survey
analysis also suggests that to augment cash flow problems the majority of firms take a bank
loan. This indicates that they may not have analysed cash flows appropriately to adequately
anticipate the need for cash resources during the course of project execution, and therefore may
not have a good track record of adequate financial stability or collateral and a lower credit
rating. Previous research shows that lenders do not easily provide large capital to firms with no
track record/collateral and a lower credit rating (Seo et al., 2018). Payment for goods and services
from customers, and purchase of stock and raw materials were indicated by respondents to be
significant sources of cash inflow and outflow respectively, which implies that there is income
available to pay accounts and wages.
 The study found that the top three major significant causes of cash flow problems are Cash flow on
delay in payment to the contractor; difficulty in obtaining financial aid; and inadequate construction
budgetary control. Delays in the payment of clients to contractors (for amounts due to them)
impede cash inflow into the contractor’s purse thus diminishing their resources to continue
projects
works. This situation is further exacerbated when contractors are unable to obtain bank
loans and/or overdrafts which in turn could lead to insolvency. Studies by Diamond and He
(2014) and Seo et al. (2018) show that construction organisations may pass up otherwise
profitable investment opportunities when they do not have adequate internal funds. A 319
robust system of budgetary control for construction projects is aligned to previous findings
by Onukwube (2005) and Ward (2000) who demonstrate that a lack of such will result in
cash flow problems.
The findings presented also suggest that positive cash flows are perceived to have
positive effects upon the delivery of construction projects, namely: adequate planning and
execution of the project; availability of sufficient cash to meet demands; timely completion of
the project; proper utilisation of cash resources; and reliability indicator to lending institutions
in. Earlier studies of Nwachukwu and Emoh (2011) support these findings and assert that
the most vital element to be prudently monitored is time. Cash is one of the most critical
aspects of success; not only is it needed for a company’s project to survive but positive cash
flow management will guarantee a timely completion of the works to the mutual satisfaction
of all parties. The greater the internal cash flow and net revenue, the larger the construction
company investment values (Tran et al., 2019).
Conversely, negative cash flows were found to have adverse effects upon cash flow
analysis in the form of: capital lock-up; delay in completion time; project abandonment;
reduction in profit margin; additional (increased) cost; and litigation/arbitration.
Mahamid et al. (2012) and Sambasivan and Soon (2007) argue that delays on site caused
by inadequate cash flows may be due to late payments to sustain construction outlays –
particularly for those contractors who are not financially buoyant. Firms’ financial
crisis may have a significant effect on the trade credit policies of individual firms
(Harris et al., 2019). When such occurs the project is delayed, which invariably results in
the extension of completion time, increased costs and reduced profit margin. In this
case, the contractor either borrows money to meet debt obligations or removes funds
from the company’s reserves, thereby depriving the interest-earning capability of the
cash. Omopariola et al. (2017) acknowledge that contractors will abandon projects when
payment certificates are not honoured by a client when due, as timely payment is
needed to avoid unnecessary outsourcing of funds which attracts high interest rates
and hence, has negative effects on profitability (Adjeil et al., 2018). However, project
abandonment could cause the contractor to suffer financial losses, which can also be
interpreted as a negative impact on cash flow. Moreover, there is impact upon the client
as they would have to complete the job using other contractors and often at a much
higher rate. These findings cumulatively corroborate the study by Lowe (1997), Arditi
et al. (2000), Abdul-Rahman et al. (2009), and Sankar and Kumar (2018) in the UK,
Malaysia and India which indicate that cash flow problems and poor management are
the main causes of the failure of construction project delivery. Therefore, ensuring
project viability necessitates the effective management of cash inflows and outflows
which will indirectly improve the performance of construction organisations.

6. Conclusions and recommendations

The state of a construction contractor’s cash flow is an indicator of their financial strength
and companies that become insolvent often do so because of cash flow problems. This
JEDT research investigated the contractor’s perceptions regarding the effects of positive and
18,2 negative cash flows on construction projects. The study made use of a systematic literature
review and a cross-sectional questionnaire survey to obtain responses from construction
professionals. It emerged from the study that: construction companies undertake regular
cash flow analysis; bank loans/overdrafts are the most common sources of capital used by
contractors in balancing their cash flow; and that delays in payment to contractors by the
320 client and difficulties in obtaining financial assistance are the key causes of cash flow
problems during the construction project delivery process. The study reveals that the effect
of a positive cash flow results in adequate planning and execution of the project, while a
negative cash flow has an adverse effect causing delay to the completion time and reduced
profit of construction projects.
To mitigate cash flow problems and enhance successful construction projects, this
study recommends that contractual arrangements should require the clients to honour
interim certificates as and when due to avoid late payments. Contractors should
organise advance finance from banks (such as overdrafts or loans) to be repaid as soon
as possible. The need for frequent checks to monitor and appraise the construction
programme is recommended. In solving the initial research aim, further questions and
directions for future work have transpired – namely to: determine how irregular cash
flow effects can be minimised so that cost and time overruns in construction projects
can then also be minimised, if not abolished completely. To this end, a re-examination
of the methods of initiating interim payments included in the contract documentation
should be considered. Further research is also recommended into the effect of cash flow
forecasting (planning) and financial management (control) on various construction
activities to enable the establishment of precautionary measures against the impact of
cash flow problems if they occur on a project.

References
Abdul-Rahman, H., Takim, R. and Min, W.S. (2009), “Financial-related causes contributing to project
delays”, Journal of Retail and Leisure Property, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 225-238.
Abdul-Rahman, H., Berawi, M.A., Berawi, A.R., Mohamed, O., Othman, M. and Yahya, I.A. (2006),
“Delay mitigation in the Malaysian construction industry”, Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, Vol. 132 No. 2, pp. 125-133.
Abubakar, A.D., Abdulrazaq, M. and Abdullahi, M. (2016), “Assessing the capabilities of contractors in
monitoring construction cash flow in Nigeria”, Nigerian Institute of Quantity Surveyors, Vol. 2
No. 1, pp. 703-714.
Adediran, A. and Windapo, A.O. (2017), “The influence of government targeted procurement strategies
on the growth performance of construction small and medium-sized contractors (SMCs) in South
Africa”, International Journal of Construction Supply Chain Management, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 151-164.
Adjeil, E.A.-G., Fugar, F.D.K., Adinyira, E., Edwards, D.J. and Parn, E.A. (2018), “Exploring the
significant cash flow factors influencing building projects profitability in Ghana”, International
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 35-46.
Aibinu, A.A. and Jagboro, G.O. (2002), “The effects of construction delays on project delivery in
Nigerian construction industry”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20 No. 8,
pp. 593-599.
Aje, I.O., Adedokun, O.A. and Ibironke, O.T. (2015), “Analysis of projects undertaken by quantity
surveyors in Lagos state, Nigeria”, Organization, Technology and Management in Construction:
An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1209-1216.
Akinola, J.A. (2010), “Cash flow forecasting”, Development Economics, Ado, Ekiti, Nigeria. Cash flow on
Alao, O.O., Jagboro, G.O. and Opawole, A. (2018), “Cost and time implications of abandoned project construction
resuscitation: a case study of educational institutional buildings in Nigeria”, Journal of Financial
Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 185-201. projects
Ameh, O.J. and Odusami, K.T. (2002), “Factors affecting labour productivity in the Nigerian
construction industry – a case study of indigenous contracting organization in Lagos”, The
Quantity Surveyor, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 14-18.
Arafat, H. and Skaik, S. (2016), “How can contractors warrant timely payments in the UAE construction
321
industry?”, in George, B.C. (Ed.), The construction, building and real estate research conference of
the Royal institution of Chartered Surveyors, 20-22 September, Toronto.
Arditi, D., Koksal, A. and Kale, S. (2000), “Business failures in the construction industry”, Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 120-132.
Asante, J.A. (2014), “Financial distress related causes of project delays in the Ghanaian construction
industry, unpublished”, available at: http://dspace.knust.edu.gh/bitstream/123456789/6465/1/
ASANTE%20JOYCELINE%20ANNOA.pdf (accessed April 2019).
Beatham, S., Anumba, C., Thorpe, T. and Hedges, I. (2004), “KPIs: a critical appraisal of their use in
construction”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 93-117.
Benaitiene, N. and Audrius, B. (2012), “Risk management in construction projects”, Risk Management-
Current Issues and Challenges, Intech Open science/open minds Publishing.
Berry, L.E. (2011), Financial Accounting Demystified, Mc Graw Hill, New York, NY.
Bhandari, S.B. and Iyer, R. (2013), “Predicting business failure using cash flow statement based
measures”, Managerial Finance, Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 667-676.
Bob, G. (2005), “Construction industry payment and adjudication an Australian perspective”,
International forum on construction industry payment act and adjudication, 13 and 14
September 2005, Kuala Lumpur convention centre, Kuala Lumpur.
Boussabaine, A.H. and Kaka, A.P. (1998), “A neural networks approach for cost flow forecasting”,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 471-479.
Buertey, J.I.T. and Adjei-Kumi, T. (2012), “Cash flow forecasting in the construction industry: the case
of Ghana”, Pentvars Business Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 65-81.
Calvert, R.E. (1986), Introduction to Building Management, 5th ed., Butterworths, London. pp. 91-97.
Chew, D.A.S., Yan, S. and Cheah, C.Y.J. (2008), “Core capability and competitive strategy for
construction SMEs in China”, Chinese Management Studies, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 203-214.
Clough, R.H. and Sears, G.A. (1994), Construction Contracting, 6th ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York,
NY.
Dahunsi, T. (2010), Effects of Cash Flow on Construction Activities in Nigeria, Unpublished Seminar
Paper Department of Quantity Surveying, Federal of Technology, Akure.
Danuri, M.M., Munaaim, M.C., Rahman, H.A. and Hanid, M. (2006), “Late and Non-Payment issues in
the malaysian construction Industry-Contractor’s perspective”, International Conference on
Construction, Culture, Innovation and Management (CCIM).
Diamond, D.W. and He, Z. (2014), “The theory of debt maturity: the long and short of debt overhang”,
The Journal of Finance, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 719-762.
Edwards, D.J., Pärn, E.A., Love, P.E.D. and El-Gohary, H. (2017), “Machinery, manumission and
economic machinations”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 70, pp. 391-394, doi: 10.1016/j.
jbusres.2016.08.012.
Garner, J. (2012), Cash flow Forecasting: RICS Guidance Note, 1st ed., Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors (RICS), (GN 79/2011), ISBN 978 1 84219 687 8.
Habib, A. and Huang, X. (2019), “CRS investment and cash flow sensitivity under the managerial
optimism”, Journal of Statistics and Management Systems, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 11-30.
JEDT Harris, C., Roark, S. and Zhe, L. (2019), “Cash flow volatility and trade credit in Asia”, International
Journal of Managerial Finance, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 257-271.
18,2
Harris, F. and McCaffer, R. (2001), Modern Construction Management, 6th ed., University Oxford,
Black-well Science Publishing, Oxford.
Harris, F. and McCaffer, R. (2006), Modern Construction Management, 6th ed., Blackwell Publishing,
Oxford.
322 Huggins, C. (2013), “Cash flow is king [online]”, available at: www.hl.co.uk/news/Articles/cash-flow-is-
king (accessed 8 July 2017).
Hwee, N.G. and Tiong, R.L.K. (2002), “Model on cash flow forecasting and risk analysis for contracting
firms”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 351-363.
Jabbari, H., Sadeghi, Z. and Askari, S.A. (2013), “Cash flow, earning opacity and its impact on stock
price crash risk in Tehran stock exchange”, International Journal of Academic Research in
Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 138-145.
Kennedy, P. (2005), “Statistics and trends in statutory adjudication in the UK since 1998”, International
forum on construction industry payment act and adjudication, 13 and 14 September 2005, Kuala
Lumpur convention centre, Kuala Lumpur.
Khosrowshahi, F. and Kaka, A.P. (2007), “A decision support model for construction cash flow
management, computer-aided”, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 22
No. 7, pp. 527-539.
Kumar, K.S., Sivashanmugan, C. and Vennela, M.B. (2018), “The relationship between cash flow
management practices and perceived business performance: a proposed conceptual model”,
Indian Journal of Finance, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 1-15.
Lowe, J.G. (1997), “Insolvency in the U.K. construction industry”, Journal of Financial Management of
Property and Construction, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 83-110.
Lowe, J.G. and Moroke, E. (2010), “Insolvency in the UK construction sector”, in Egbu, C. (Ed.), Procs
26th Annual ARCOM Conference. Researchers in construction management, September, Leeds,
pp. 93-100.
Mahamid, I., Bruland, A. and Dmaidi, N. (2012), “Causes of delay in road construction projects”, Journal
of Management in Engineering, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 300-310.
Maravas, A. and Pantouvakis, J.P. (2012), “Project cash flow analysis in the presence of uncertainty in
activity duration and cost”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 374-384.
Mulenga, M. and Bhatia, M. (2017), “The review of literature on the role of earnings, cash flows and
accruals in predicting of future cash flows”, Accounting and Finance Research, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 59-70.
Nandakumar, M.K. (2008), “Strategy formulation and implementation in manufacturing organisations
– the impact on performance. Unpublished thesis submitted to middlesex university in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of doctor of philosophy”, Middlesex University
Business School, London.
Naoum, S. (2003), “An overview into the concept of partnering”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 71-76.
Navon, R. (1996), “Company-level cash-flow management”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 122 No. 1, pp. 733-9364.
Navon, R. (2005), “Automated project performance control of construction project”, Automation in
Construction, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 144-476.
Nigeria country report (2013), “GDP data and GDP forecast; economic, financial and trade information;
the best banks in Nigeria; country and population”, [Online], available at: www.gfmag.com/gdp-
data-country-reports/207-nigeria-gdp-country-report.htm1#axzz2w1datvix (accessed 8 January
2014).
Nwachukwu, C.C. and Emoh, F.I. (2011), “Building construction project management success as a Cash flow on
critical issue in real estate development and investment”, American Journal of Social and
Management Sciences, pp. 56-73.
construction
Nwanyanwu, L.A. (2015), “Cash flow and organisational performance in Nigeria: hospitality and print
projects
media industries perspectives”, European Journal of Business, Economics and Accountancy,
Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 66-72.
Odeh, A.M. and Battaineth, H. (2002), “Causes of construction delay: traditional contracts”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 67-73. 323
Odeyinka, H.A. and Yusif, A. (1997), “The causes and effects of construction delays on completion cost
of housing projects in Nigeria”, Journal of Financial Management Property Construction, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp. 31-44.
Odeyinka, H.A., Lowe, J. and Kaka, A. (2008), “An evaluation of risk factors impacting construction
cash flow forecast”, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 13
No. 1, pp. 5-17.
Oforeh, E.C. and Alufohai, A.J. (2000), Management Estimating and Budgeting for Electrical
Installations, Cosines (Nig.), Lagos.
Oke, A., Ogungbile, A., Oyewobi, L. and Tengan, C. (2016), “Economic development as a function of
construction project performance”, Journal of Construction Project Management and Innovation,
Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 1447-1459.
Omag, A. (2016), “Cash flows from financing activities. Evidence from the automotive industry”,
International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 115-122.
Omopariola, E.D., Lowe, G.J. and Windapo, A. (2017), “Effects of cashflow on project delivery in the
Nigerian construction industry”, Procs 11th Annual Built Environment Conference. Association
of Schools of Construction of Southern Africa, 6-8th August, Durban, pp. 452-463.
Onukwube, H.N. (2005), “Cash flow and financial management in some selected Nigerian construction
firms”, Nigeria Institute of Quantity Surveyor, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 3-10.
Park, H.-K. (2004), “Cash flow forecasting in construction project”, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering,
Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 265-271.
Peer, S. (1982), “Application of cash flow forecasting models”, Journal of the Construction Division
ASCE, Vol. 108 No. 2, pp. 226-232.
Plano Clark, V.L. and Creswell, J.W. (2015). Understanding Research: A Consumer’s Guide, 2nd ed.,
Pearson Education.
PricewaterhouseCoopers (2009), “Insolvency in brief”, [Online], available at: www.pwc.co.uk/en_UK/
uk/assets/pdf/insolvency-in-brief.pdf (accessed 5 May 2017).
Purnus, A. and Bodea, C.N. (2017), “A predictive model of contractor financial effort in transport
infrastructure projects”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 196, pp. 746-753.
RICS (2014), “Quantity surveying and construction standards: cash flow forecasting”, [online], available
at: www.isurv.com/site/scripts/documents.aspx (accessed 8 June 2017).
Russell, A. (1991), “Cash flow forecasting in construction project”, Journal of Civil Engineering KSCE
May, 2004, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 265-271.
Salami, O.T. and Mustapha, I.A. (2015), “Effects of contractor interference with consultants on project
outcome”, A Paper presented at Proceedings of the 2nd Nigerian Institute of Quantity Surveyors
Research Conference. Held on 1-3 September, 2015 in Federal University of Technology, Akure.
Sambasivan, M. and Soon, Y.W. (2007), “Causes and effects of delays in Malaysian construction
industry”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 517-526.
Sankar, D.G. and Kumar, R.B. (2018), “Empirical analysis on financial performance through cash flow
statements”, International Journal of Accounting and Finance Review, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
JEDT Seo, K., Soh, J. and Sharma, A. (2018), “Do financial constraints affect the sensitivity of investment to
cash flow? New evidence from franchised restaurant firms”, Tourism Economics, Vol. 24 No. 6,
18,2 pp. 645-661.
Sherif, E. and Kaka, A. (2003), “Factors influencing the selection of payment systems in construction
projects”, 19th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2003, University of Brighton, pp. 63-70.
Singh, S. and Lakanathan, G. (1992), “Cash flow forecasting in construction project”, Journal of Civil
Engineering KSCE May, 2004, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 265-271.
324
Tam, A. (2002), The Development of the MTR Tseung Kwan O Extension, MTRC, Hong Kong.
Tran, M.L., Mai, H.C., Le, H.P., Bui, V.L.C., Nguyen, P.V.L. and Huynh, D.L.T. (2019), “Monetary policy,
cash flow and corporate investment: empirical evidence from Vietnam”, Journal of Risk and
Financial Management, Vol. 12 No. 46, pp. 1-14.
Tucker, G.C., Windapo, A. and Cattel, K. (2015), “Exploring the use of financial capacity as a predictor
of construction company corporate performance: evidence from South Africa”, Journal of
Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 1-18.
Ugochukwu, S.C. and Onyekwena, T. (2014), “Participation of indigenous contractors in Nigerian public-
sector construction projects and their challenges in managing working capital”, International
Journal of Civil Engineering, Construction and Estate Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Usman, N., Sani, A. and Tukur, I.R. (2016), “An appraisal of factors affecting cash flows in building
project delivery in Nigeria”, International Journal of Research and Development Organisation,
Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 2455-2466.
Van de Ven, A. and Ferry, D. (1979), Measuring and Assessing Organisations, Wiley, New York, NY.
Ward, S. (2000), “Cash flow analysis”, available at: http://sbinfoCanadaabout.com/cs/management/g/
Cashflow.Anal.htm (accessed 17 December 2017).
Williams, R.V. and Jeongwoo, K. (2010), “Cash flow forecasting: principle”, available at: www.
nibusinessinfo.co.uk/budgeting/action/details? (accessed 22 December 2013).
Windapo, A. and Cattel, K. (2013), “The South African construction industry: perceptions of key
challenges facing its performance, development and growth”, Journal of Construction in
Developing Countries, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 65-79.
Windapo, A., Odediran, S., Moghayedi, A., Adediran, A. and Oliphant, D. (2017), “Determinants of
building construction costs in South Africa”, Journal of Construction Business and Management,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 8-13.
Yin, R.K. (2009), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 4th ed., SAGE Publications, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01103312
Zainudeen, M., Kumari, G. and Seneviratne, T. (2010), “Impact of design changes on contractors’ cash
flow”, Built-Environment Sri Lanka, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 2-10.

Further reading
Almeida, H., Campello, M. and Weisbach, M.S. (2004), “The cash flow sensitivity of cash”, The Journal
of Finance, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 1777-1804.
Chan, A.P.C., Scott, D. and Chan, A.P.L. (2004), “Factors affecting the success of a construction project”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 130 No. 1, pp. 153-165.
CIOB (2004), “Construction act consultation: improving payment practices”, 14 October 2004.
WorldWideWeb, available at: www.ciob.org.uk/ciob/siteRoot/News_Room/Construction_industry_
News/Article.aspx?id=724, (accessed 15 November 2017).
Hughes, W.P., Hillebrandt, P.M. and Murdoch, J.R. (1998), Financial Protection in the UK Building
Industry, Taylor and Francis, London.
Kenley, R. and Wilson, O. (1986), “A construction project cash flow model-an ideographic approach”,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 213-232.
Motawa, I. and Kaka, A. (2009), “Modelling payment mechanisms for supply chain in construction”, Cash flow on
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 325-336.
construction
Odeyinka, H.A. and Kaka, A. (2005), “An evaluation of contractors’ satisfaction with payment terms
influencing construction cash flow”, Journal of Financial Management of Property and projects
Construction, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 171-180.
Owolabi, A.O., Chan, A.A. and Ogunlana, A.A. (2014), “Roots causes of construction project delays in
Singapore”, Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 19-31.
Sanvido, V.E. (1990), “Critical success factors for the construction projects”, Journal of Construction
325
Engineering and Management, Vol. 118 No. 1, pp. 94-111.
Seeley, I. (1984), Quantity Surveying Practice, Macmillan Press, London.
Wang, G., Dou, W., Zhu, W. and Zhou, N. (2015), “The effects of firm capabilities on external
collaboration and performance: the moderating role of market turbulence”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 68 No. 9, pp. 1928-1936.

Corresponding author
David John Edwards can be contacted at: drdavidedwards@aol.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com