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

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0969-9988.htm

Relationship networks between Variation,

claims, and
variation orders and claims/ stakeholder
performance
disputes causes on construction
project performance and
stakeholder performance Received 20 January 2022
Revised 12 May 2022
Accepted 10 June 2022
Sy Tien Do
Department of Construction Engineering and Management,
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology (HCMUT),
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam and
Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Viet Thanh Nguyen
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City,
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, and
Nghia Hoai Nguyen
Department of Civil Engineering, International University,
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam and
Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to examine the mutual influence of causes of variation orders (VOs), claims/
disputes (CDs) on project performance (PP) and stakeholder performance (SP).
Design/methodology/approach – Firstly, this study identifies the VOs, the CDs, criteria for measuring the
PP and criteria for measuring the SP. Then, a survey questionnaire is created to collect data from stakeholders
in construction projects. Using the factor analysis method, this study discovers the constructs of the VOs, CDs,
PP and SP. The relationships among the constructs are then uncovered using a structural equation model.
Findings – The research findings confirm that the VOs and CDs have a direct effect on the PP, as well as the
PP’s effect on SP, whereas the VOs and CDs have no effect on the SP. It is strongly recommended that critical
factors such as poor management, construction method change, design/scope problems, uncontrollable
objective problems, impediment problems, lack of commitment among parties and lack of experience and
competence of parties should be given special attention to improve the SP.
Originality/value – The results of the study fill the gap in knowledge by examining the mutual influence of
the VOs, the CDs, the PP and the SP. Discovering the mutual influence will assist managers in improving the PP
and the SP.
Keywords Claims, Disputes, Project performance, Relationships, Stakeholder performance, Variation orders
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The construction industry makes a significant contribution to a country’s economic
development (Do et al., 2022). However, this industry and its stakeholders face a high degree
of risk due to its nature (Mahamid, 2017). Variations are inevitable in the industry because of
its fragmentation (Ssegawa et al., 2002). Moreover, claims/disputes among stakeholders
Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management
The authors acknowledge the support of time and facilities from Ho Chi Minh City University of © Emerald Publishing Limited
0969-9988
Technology (HCMUT), VNU-HCM for this study. DOI 10.1108/ECAM-01-2022-0066
ECAM arising in the industry are natural from the construction processes (Raji et al., 2015). The
occurrence of variation orders and claims/disputes in construction projects can result in poor
project performance (PP) and poor stakeholder performance (SP).
Construction project variations can affect contract duration, total direct and indirect costs,
or both (Arain and Pheng, 2005; Ibbs et al., 2007). For instance, approximately $60 billion is
spent annually on change orders in the United States (Akhavian and Behzadan, 2012).
Besides, according to Hanna et al. (2002), the more variations in a project, the greater the loss
of labor productivity. Variation orders may result in unsafe working conditions due to
differences in construction methods, materials and equipment (Arain and Pheng, 2005).
Additionally, they can contribute to poor work quality, as contractors often compensate for
losses by cutting corners (CII, 1995). Moreover, according to Anees et al.’s (2013) research,
profits of stakeholders were severely affected due to variation orders. In sum, variation orders
impact both PP and SP criteria (e.g. schedule, quality, cost and safety) (e.g. productivity,
profits of the parties and defects).
In addition, variation orders might lead to claims or even disputes (Acharya et al., 2006;
Mitkus and Mitkus, 2014). Especially in large and complex construction projects, the number
of claims or disputes is increasing due to poor management (Zaneldin, 2020). If claims/
disputes are not resolved properly, they can cause project delays, cost overruns, undermine
teamwork and harm business relationships (Cheung et al., 2002; Chan and Suen, 2005; Love
et al., 2010); as well as loss of profitability and productivity (Mashwama et al., 2016).
Especially, the effect of claims/disputes on cost or cash flow was significant (Ilter, 2012).
Additionally, conflicts and disputes in the construction site have a negative impact on the
activities of all stakeholders (Acharya et al., 2006).
As discussed above, variation orders, claims/disputes have a negative impact on the
criteria of the PP and SP. It is critical for managers to improve this problem. To achieve this, a
model showing relationships between causes of variation orders, claims/disputes and the PP
and SP needs to be explored. Based on the direction and weight of the impact between the
relationships, managers can quickly identify root causes and localize priority areas for
improving the PP and SP. This means that managers will be able to gain a clear picture of
how to enhance the PP and SP in the aspect of variation orders and claims/disputes. For
example, if a project is underperforming, managers can use relationship pathways to trace
direct and indirect causes that have significant impacts on the PP and SP. They will be able to
come up with relevant and timely solutions in this manner.
However, no studies have been conducted to examine such relationships simultaneously.
This study aims to investigate the relationships between the causes of variation orders,
claims/disputes and the PP and SP. Besides, the relationship between causes of variation
orders (VOs) and causes of claims/disputes also needs to be explored. This study only
considers the causes of cost-related claim/disputes (CDs) because disputes significantly affect
the cost (Ilter, 2012). In this study, cost-related claims/disputes are defined as disagreement
between parties over assertions of additional costs and SP is defined as the outcomes
obtained by stakeholders after the completion of a project.

2. Literature review
2.1 Research overview of variation orders, claims/disputes in construction projects
Construction has traditionally been a barometer of national and worldwide economic
progress. Nevertheless, construction projects nowadays are dynamic, risky, complex and
massive, involving many, potentially multicultural parties (Do et al., 2021). Frequently, it is
challenging to execute a project without diverging from the original plan, resulting in
variations and claims. There have been many studies related to variations and claims in
construction projects. The majority of the existing studies focusing on variations have
extended broadly from the identification causes of variations (Wu et al., 2004; Enshassi et al., Variation,
2010; Hanif et al., 2014; Senouci et al., 2017), variations’ effects (Arain and Pheng, 2005; claims, and
Oladapo, 2007; Keane et al., 2010; Lindhard, 2014; Hanif et al., 2016; Mahamid, 2017; Maqbool
et al., 2020), causes and effects of variations (Sun and Meng, 2009; Alnuaimi et al., 2010;
stakeholder
Memon et al., 2014; Oyewobi et al., 2016), strategies for reducing variations (Chan and Yeong, performance
1995; Keane, 2010). The system model for management of variations has been studied (Arain
and Pheng, 2006). More importantly, the impact of variation orders on the criteria of the PP
have also been developed (Ndihokubwayo, 2008; Memon et al., 2014; Maqbool et al., 2020).
Although claims are typically submitted during the construction and post-construction
phases, they can also come from pre-tendering and contract preparation errors and acts
(Sibanyama et al., 2012). The majority of previous research on claims/disputes have gone
much beyond the discovery of claim causes (Kumaraswamy, 1997; Enshassi et al., 2009;
Sibanyama et al., 2012; Stamatiou et al., 2018; Parikh et al., 2019; Jalal et al., 2019; Le-Hoai et al.,
2019; Illankoon et al., 2019; Saseendran et al., 2020; Tanriverdi et al., 2021), outcomes of
construction claims (Chaphalkar et al., 2015), causes and effects of claims/disputes (Aryal and
Dahal, 2018; Zaneldin, 2020). Especially, there are many support models to solve claim and
dispute issues in construction, such as a proposed system for avoiding construction
disputable claims (Mitropoulus and Howell, 2001; Mohamed et al., 2014), the decision-making
governance platforms for the progression of construction claims and disputes (Abdul-Malak
et al., 2020), a causal model of disputes (Kumar Viswanathan et al., 2020) and a hybrid fuzzy
logic-SEM model for dispute probability evaluation (Naji et al., 2020).
To sum up, research on relationship networks among the VOs, the CDs, the PP and SP in
construction projects has gotten scant attention. Several studies have been conducted on the
relationships between the VOs and CDs (Priyantha et al., 2011; Dickson et al., 2015; Zaneldin,
2020); the VOs and the criteria of the PP (Arain and Pheng, 2005; Enshassi et al., 2010); and the
CDs and the criteria of the PP (Ilter, 2012; Cakmak and Cakmak, 2014; Mashwama et al., 2016).
However, there has not been enough evidence for direct relationships, for example, between
the VOs and the PP, the CDs and the PP, the PP and SP in a model. Therefore, this study tries
to fill these gaps in knowledge.
To achieve the study’s objective, the VOs, the CDs and the criteria of the PP and SP, must
first be identified. They are then re-examined by experts in the pilot test stage.

2.2 Causes of variation orders (VOs)

Many studies were performed to identify the VOs (Table 1). Wu et al. (2004), in a
comprehensive investigation into highway construction in Taiwan, indicated most critical
causes of change orders, such as using new and other construction methods, changes to avoid
the demolition of buildings and construction changes. Meanwhile, Hsieh et al. (2004), in their
study on Taiwan metropolitan public projects, pointed out that causes of change orders
related to planning and design problems. In Singapore institutional building projects, Arain
and Pheng (2006) found that errors and omissions in design, owner’s specification changes
and design differences were considered the most important VOs. Enshassi et al. also
identified these as the primary VOs in construction projects in the Gaza Strip (2010).
In a study conducted in Nigeria, with a focus on educational buildings, Oyewobi et al.
(2016) identified several major VOs, including a lack of understanding of the customer’s
requirement, insufficient contractual procedure, insufficient technology application and
omission during construction. Alnuaimi et al. (2010) concluded that the most significant
causes of change orders in public construction projects in Oman were the owner’s additional
works, design modifications and a lack of construction manuals and procedures; however,
these factors did not appear to be significant in the study by Halwatura and Ranasinghe
(2013). According to Halwatura and Ranasinghe (2013), the most common VOs in road
construction projects in Sri Lanka was poor estimation, followed by political pressure,
ECAM Causes of References
ID variation orders 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Total

VO1 Change in scope U U U U U U U U U 9

of project
VO2 Conflicts in U U U U U U U U 8
contract
documents
VO3 Impedimental U U U U U U 6
decision-making
process
VO4 Obstinate nature U U U 3
of owner
VO5 Ambiguous scope U U U U 4
of work
VO6 Poor U U U U U U U 7
communication
VO7 Replacement of U U U U U U 6
materials or
procedures
VO8 Inadequate U U U U U U U U 8
strategic plan
VO9 Design change U U U U U U U U U U U U 12
VO10 Poor knowledge U U U U U U 6
of available
materials and
equipment
VO11 Technology U U U U U U U U 8
change
VO12 Errors and U U U U U U U U U U U U 12
omissions in
design
VO13 Fast-track U 1
construction
VO14 Lack of U U U 3
contractor’s
participation in
the design phase
VO15 Value engineering U U U 3
VO16 Delay in sending/ U 1
feedback/
approval RFI and
RFA
VO17 Poor supervision U U U 3
and site
management
VO18 Force majeure U U U U U U 6
VO19 Change in U U U U U U U U U U U 11
standards or
regulations
VO20 Government U U 2
intervention
Source(s): 1. Hsieh et al. (2004), 2. Wu et al. (2004), 3. Arain and pheng (2006), 4. Oladapo (2007), 5. Sun and Meng
Table 1. (2009), 6. Enshassi et al. (2010), 7. Alnuaimi et al. (2010), 8. Halwatura and Ranasinghe (2013), 9. Hanif et al.
Causes of variation (2014), 10. Senouci et al. (2017), 11. Oyewobi et al. (2016), 12. Mahamid (2017), 13. Experts
orders and cost-related
claims/disputes
(continued )
 Variation,
References claims, and
ID Causes of cost-related claims/disputes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total stakeholder
CL1 Unfair risk allocation in contracts U U U 3 performance
CL2 Unrealistic time/cost/quality targets (of client) U U U U U 5
CL3 Adversarial relation between the contractor, the owner U U U U U U 6
and the supervision team
CL4 Ambiguous risk balances in contracts U U 2
CL5 Lack of competence of project participants U U 2
CL6 Unrealistic information expectations (contractor’s) U U U 3
CL7 Inappropriate payment modalities U U U U 4
CL8 Personality clashes U U U 3
Source(s): 1. Kumaraswamy (1997), 2. Sinha and Wayal (1998), 3. Yogeswaran (1998), 4. Cheung et al. (2012),
5. Enshassi et al. (2009), 6. Cakmak and Cakmak (2014), 7. Zaneldin (2020) Table 1.

inadequate investigation and owner changes. Modifications to design were also found to be
one of the most significant VOs in construction of hydropower projects of Pakistan by Hanif
et al. (2014). They also included some additional significant causes, such as scope changes,
design errors and omissions and conflicts between contract documents.
This study filters out 19 possible VOs as a result of the literature review (Table 1). The
following criteria are used to select the causes: (1) the causes are mutually exclusive in their
content; (2) causes deemed impractical in light of the current state of construction in Vietnam
are omitted, including “other organizations”, “organizational business strategy” and
“political problems”; and (3) excessively specific causes for particular projects are also
omitted, for example, “special request from the City Council” and “requirement from the
urban planning agency”.

2.3 Causes of cost-related claims/disputes (CDs)

This section aims to conduct a comprehensive literature review on causes leading to claims/
disputes to identify the CDs. Up to now, research on the CDs in construction projects has still
received very little attention.
Cakmak and Cakmak (2014) identified 28 common causes of disputes in construction
projects, where these causes were categorized into seven main categories such as: owner,
contractor, design, contract, human behavior, project and external related factors. In
Enshassi et al.’s (2009) study, the causes of claims caused by the contractual relationship
group were considered the highest groups that caused claims on construction projects.
Similar results were also found in studies of Iyer et al. (2008), Aryal and Dahal (2018), Parikh
et al. (2019). Specifically, these studies affirmed that ambiguity and/or omissions in the
contract agreement, stakeholders failing to understand and/or comply with its contractual
obligation, type of construction contract, unfair risk and balances in contracts were the
crucial causes of claims and disputes. Additionally, Kumaraswamy (1997) investigated the
proximal and root causes of disputes. Identified root causes, for example, unfair risk
allocation; unclear risk allocation; the client’s unreasonable time/cost/quality objectives.
Besides, proximate causes such as inadequate brief; slow client responses; erroneous design
information were discovered. Using case law and focus groups with a client and contracting
organization from Western Australia, Love et al. (2010) determined the underlying issues that
clients and contractors believe lead to construction project disputes. In a recent analysis of the
types and reasons of construction claims in the UAE, Zaneldin (2020) determined that
variation orders were the most common and severe source of construction claims, followed by
owner-caused delays and owner personality.
ECAM As a result of the literature review, this study filters out eight potential CDs (Table 1). The
potential causes are selected based on the following criteria: (1) the causes are mutually
exclusive in terms of content; (2) the causes reflect their cost; and (3) excessively specific
causes for specific projects are also omitted.

2.4 Criteria for project performance (PP)

Takim and Akintoye (2002) explored that the seven construction performance indicators that
contribute to successful project management are construction cost, construction time, cost
predictability, time predictability, defects, product-based client satisfaction and service-
based client satisfaction. However, Sibiya et al. (2015) showed that the “iron triangle” of
construction project success is defined by three key performance indicators (KPIs): time, cost
and quality. Numerous studies (Chan and Chan, 2004; Enshassi et al., 2009; Sibiya et al., 2015)
demonstrated that cost, time and quality were the primary and most important
characteristics of construction PP. Additionally, Hasan and Jha (2013) indicated that
measuring a project’s safety performance was as critical as cost, time and quality, because if
accidents occurred, both contractors and owners could face legal claims (Chan and Chan,
2004). As a result, it makes sense to use cost, time, quality and safety as key performance
criteria when evaluating the PP (Table 2).

2.5 Criteria for stakeholder performance (SP)

While this study attempted to conduct a literature review to identify criteria for measuring
the SP, the criteria were not discovered in previous research. The satisfaction of stakeholders/
organizations with the project’s outcomes, according to Oppong et al. (2017), should be
examined to evaluate the SP. This study identifies potential criteria for measuring the SP by
examining the attributes of stakeholders/organizational satisfaction. Bassioni et al. (2004)
stated that the performance of construction organizations can be measured in terms of
productivity, safety and profitability; whereas Cheung et al. (2012) stated that the

References
ID Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total

Project PP1 Project implementation schedule U U U U U U 6

performance PP2 Quality of the project U U U U U 5
PP3 Cost of the project U U U U U U 6
PP4 Material management U U 2
PP5 Project safety and environment U U U U 4
Source(s): 1. Takim and Akintoye (2002), 2. Chan and Chan (2004), 3. Enshassi et al. (2009), 4. Masrom and
Skitmore (2009), 5. Hasan and Jha (2013), 6. Sibiya et al. (2015), 7. Experts

Reference
ID Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total

Stakeholder SP1 Productivity of work U U U 3

performance SP2 Relationship between the U U U U U 5
parties
Table 2. SP3 Profits of the parties U U U U U 5
Criteria for the project SP4 Rework and defects U 1
performance and SP5 Payments U 1
stakeholder Source(s): 1. Ahmed and Kangari (1995), 2. Maloney (2002), 3. Bassioni et al. (2004), 4. Leung et al. (2004),
performance 5. Toor and Ogunlana (2010), 6. Cao and Zhang (2011), 7. Ikediashi et al. (2012), 8. Cheung et al. (2012), 9. Experts
performance indicators for construction organizations included finance, internal business, Variation,
customer and innovation and learning. According to Ikediashi et al. (2012), firm performance claims, and
is measured in terms of time, financial and strategic performance, whereas Cao and Zhang
(2011) assert that firm performance is measured in terms of sales growth, return on
stakeholder
investment, growth in return on investment and profit margin on sales. Leung et al. (2004) performance
demonstrated that management mechanisms (e.g. communication, participation and
commitment) were more important in determining stakeholder satisfaction than specific
project objectives (e.g. time, cost and quality). In another point of view, Maloney (2002)
proposed that the satisfaction of stakeholders should be evaluated using five criteria: the
relationship between the parties, project management, safety, skilled workforce and cost.
Additionally, Toor and Ogunlana (2010) identified nine key performance indicators for
stakeholder perception, including on time, within budget, meets specifications, operates
efficiently, do the right thing, safety, defect-free, meet stakeholders’ expectations and
minimize disputes and conflicts. Based on the discussion above, four potential criteria for
evaluating the SP are chosen to initiate the pilot survey phase (Table 2).

3. Research methodology
The framework utilized in this study is depicted in Figure 1. Firstly, this study conducts a
literature review to identify the VOs, the CDs, criteria for measuring the PP and criteria for
measuring the SP. The result of the literature is the lists of the causes and criteria, which is
used to design the questionnaire used for data collection in the study. To minimize bias in
data collection, pilot studies are performed to ensure the clarity of the questionnaire.
Moreover, any causes/criteria that are not considered before in the literature or unsuitable can
added or removed from the questionnaire. After correcting the questionnaire, the study
performs a formal survey to collect data. Afterward, the factor analysis technique is applied
to identify constructs of the VOs, CDs, PP and SP. The structural equation modeling (SEM)
technique is then used to discover the relationships among the constructs. Finally, based on
the results of the SEM model, discussion and practical implications are drawn. More details
on pilot studies and data collection are presented in the following paragraphs.

The list of:

Literature Identify causes of Identify criteria for
Identify causes of cost- Identify criteria for Causes of variation order
review on variation orders in measuring
related claims/disputes measuring project Causes of cost-related claims/disputes
previous construction stakeholder
in construction projects performance Criteria for project performance
studies projects performance
Criteria for stakeholder performance

Pilot studies Questionnaire design

Data collection

Identify constructs of:

Causes of variation orders
Factor analysis Causes of cost-related claims/disputes
Project performance
Stakeholder performance

Confirmatory Factor Discover the relationships among

Analysis (CFA) constructs of variation orders causes, cost-
Strutural equation related claims/disputes causes, project
modolling (SEM) performance, and stakeholder performance

Discussion on the relationships and

implications Figure 1.
Research framework
Conclusions and Recommendations
ECAM The pilot study is conducted with five experienced experts (a project planning manager, a
project manager from an international investor, an international professional consultant, a
contractor manager and one university senior lecturer actively involved in industry practice).
The experts added one VO, namely delay in sending/feedback/approval request for
information (RFI) and request for approval (RFA). Regarding the PP and SP, the experts
agreed their measurement criteria were suitable. Besides, two criteria, namely material
management for measuring the PP and payments for measuring the SP were added (Table 2).
The experts showed that effective material management will minimize waste in construction,
thereby improving the PP while the VOs or CDs can lead to payment delays to stakeholders,
thereby affecting the SP. Finally, the completed questionnaire includes 20 VOs, eight CDs,
five criteria for measuring the PP and five criteria for measuring the SP. The questionnaire
consists of three parts. The first part of the questionnaire aims to collect the general
information of respondents. The second part requests respondents to assess their agreement
on causes leading to variation orders and claims/disputes according to a five-point Likert
scale (i.e. from 1 – strongly disagree to 5 – strongly agree). In the final part, respondents are
asked to assess the achievement of PP criteria and SP criteria based on another five-point
Likert scale (i.e. from 1 – very low to 5 – very high), excluding criterion of SP4 “Rework and
defects” that was assessed from 1 – very high to 5 – very low.
This study distributes the questionnaires to owners, consultants and contractors who
are the principal stakeholders in construction projects often involved in the VOs and the
CDs. The study uses the convenience sampling technique, which is used to address the
challenges of collecting replies from respondents using the random sampling technique
(Sekaran, 2000; Kim and Nguyen, 2020). A total of 380 questionnaires were sent to the afore-
mentioned target respondents. In return, 138 responses were received, which were
acceptable to use the SEM method compared with existing studies such as Doloi et al. (2011)
with 97 responses, Cheung et al. (2012) with 103 responses, Ikediashi et al. (2013) with 61
responses and Kim and Nguyen (2018) with 127 responses. In order to ensure the suitability
and reliability of the data for using the SEM method, Hair et al. (2010) recommended a
required ratio of five valid responses per variable. In this study, the ratio of the sample size
to variables is approximately 7:1 (ratio of 138:20), which is satisfactory. Bagozzi and Yi
(2012) suggested a sample size of at least 100 for results to be reasonably reliable. Out of 138
responses, 38 respondents (27.5%) were owners, 40 respondents (29%) were consultants
and 60 respondents (43.5%) were contractors. The experience of 57 respondents (41.3%)
was below 5 years, 39 were between 5 and 10 years (28.3%) and 42 were above
10 years (30.4%).

4. Identifying the constructs of the VOs, CDs, PP and SP

This study uses factor analysis to uncover the constructs of the VOs, CDs, PP and SP. Before
employing this procedure, the survey’s five-point scale is evaluated for its reliability. The
Cronbach alpha coefficient of twenty VOs, eight CDs, five PPs and five SPs are calculated to
be 0.769, 0.799, 0.748 and 0.832 which confirms that the scale was reliable (Hair et al., 2010).
Table 3 presents the results of factor analysis. Five constructs of the VOs include: poor
management (PM), construction method change (CMC), design/scope problems (DSP),
uncontrollable objective problems (UOP) and impediment problems (IP). The main constructs
of the CDs are: lack of commitment among parties (LCP) and lack of experience and
competence of parties (LECP). The construct of the PP are recognized by four criteria: project
implementation schedule (PP1), quality of the project (PP2), Cost of the project (PP3) and
material management (PP4) while the construct of the SP are identified by five attributes:
productivity of work (SP1), relationship between the parties (SP2), profits of the parties (SP3),
rework and defects (SP4) and payments (SP5).
 Factor Cum.
Variation,
Causes/Criteria loading Eigenvalue variance (%) claims, and
stakeholder
VOs Construct 1 – Poor management (PM) 4.022 21.166
VO17 Poor supervision and site management 0.787 performance
VO8 Inadequate plan 0.778
VO5 Ambiguous scope of work 0.730
VO2 Conflicts in contract documents 0.726
VO6 Poor communication 0.649
VO16 Delay in sending/feedback/approval RFI and 0.633
RFA
Construct 2 – Construction method change (CMC) 3.247 38.257
VO13 Fast-track construction 0.853
VO7 Replacement of materials or procedures 0.821
VO15 Value engineering 0.741
VO11 Technology change 0.734
Construct 3 – Design/scope problems (DSP) 2.071 49.158
VO1 Change in scope of project 0.828
VO9 Design change 0.689
VO10 Poor knowledge of available materials and 0.683
equipment
VO12 Errors and omissions in design 0.630
Construct 4 – Uncontrollable objective problems (UOP) 1.713 58.176
VO20 Government intervention 0.829
VO18 Force majeure 0.784
VO19 Change of standards or regulations 0.784
Construct 5 – Impediment problems (IP) 1.206 64.522
VO4 Obstinate nature of owner 0.836
VO3 Impedimental decision-making process 0.827
CDs Construct 1 – Lack of commitment among parties (LCP) 3.352 41.895
CL8 Personality clashes 0.834
CL3 Adversarial relation between the contractor, the 0.823
owner and the supervision team
CL1 Unfair risk allocation in contracts 0.793
CL4 Ambiguous risk balances in contracts 0.733
Construct 2 – Lack of experience and competence of 1.809 64.505
parties (LECP)
CL6 Unrealistic information expectations 0.838
(contractor’s)
CL7 Inappropriate payment modalities 0.813
CL2 Unrealistic time/cost/quality targets 0.746
CL5 Lack of competence of project participants 0.741
PP Construct - Project performance 2.296 57.388
PP3 Cost of the project 0.789
PP4 Material management 0.762
PP1 Project implementation schedule 0.745
PP2 Quality of the project 0.734
SP Construct - Stakeholder performance 3.005 60.098
SP3 Profits of the parties 0.811
SP4 Rework and defects 0.798
SP5 Payments 0.773 Table 3.
SP1 Productivity of work 0.754 Constructs of the VOs,
SP2 Relationship between the parties 0.739 CDs, PP and SP
ECAM 5. Relationship networks among the VOs, CDs, PP and SP
To determine the effect of VOs and CDs on the PP and then the SP, a structural model is built.
In accordance with Xiong et al. (2014) and Qureshi and Kang (2015), the SEM model in this
study was developed in two steps. In the first step, CFA was performed to demonstrate the
fitness of a CFA model (measurement model) that served as a foundation for assessing the
fitness of the SEM model (Hair et al., 2010). Next, hypothesized causal relationships were
substituted for the correlations between constructs in the measurement model and the SEM
model was evaluated (Qureshi and Kang, 2015).

5.1 Measurement model

The constructs extracted through the factor analysis technique are validated using a
measurement model. The goodness of fit (GOF) indexes are used to evaluate the measurement
model’s suitability. The results of the GOF measures of the measurement model are shown in
Table 4. This model consists of 616 degrees of freedom. The ratios of d2/df (which was
1.596 < 2), TLI (0.798), CFI (0.814) and RMSEA (0.066 < 0.080) prove that the measurement
model of constructs displays good fitness with the data collected.
In the measurement model, construct validity is evaluated based on convergent and
discriminant validities. Convergent validity tested the level of positive correlation of one
cause/attribute and other causes/attributes within the same construct, while discriminant
validity checked whether a construct was indeed distinct from other constructs, which was
very important for model development (Xiong et al., 2014). According to Hair et al. (2010), it
could be assessed by examining standardized regression weight (SRW), average variance
extracted (AVE) and construct reliability (CR). Good convergent validity was generally
indicated by statistically significant SRWs of 0.50 or more, AVE estimates of 0.50 or greater
and CR values of 0.70 or greater (Hair et al., 2010). Regarding the constructs of the VOs and
CDs, as shown in Table 5, all SRWs of the VOs and CDs are more than the value of 0.50 and
range from 0.532 to 0.851, indicating that the VOs and CDs converge on their common
constructs. The CR estimates for constructs vary from 0.714 to 0.831 (Table 6) and therefore
indicate acceptable reliability. The AVE estimates in Table 6 exceed the 0.50 threshold except
for the PM construct and DSP construct. Nonetheless, this problem can be acceptable because
these constructs meet the criteria of the SRW and the CR. Xiong et al. (2014) examined the
application of SEM in construction research and found that 64.2% of previous studies had at
least one construct AVE of less than 0.5. The preceding findings imply that the convergent
validity of the constructs of the VOs and CDs is relatively high.
Xiong et al. (2014) indicated that discriminant validity was set up if the AVE estimate of
one construct was greater than its highest squared correlation with other constructs. As can
be observed in Table 6, each AVE estimate showed that the diagonal of a matrix of inter-
construct correlations is greater than the square of the correlations between the constructs in
the column or row where they are placed, indicating that the constructs of the VOs and CDs
have discriminant validity.

Goodness-of-fit (GOF) CFA SEM

measure Recommended level of GOF measure model model

χ 2/df Recommended level from 1 to 2 1.612 1.611

Table 4. GFI Goodness of fit 0.722 0.720
Goodness-of-fit NNFI or TLI 0 (no fit) to 1 (perfect fit) 0.794 0.794
measure in CFI 0 (no fit) to 1 (perfect fit) 0.810 0.809
hypothetical and RMSEA <0.05, very good fit; 0.05–0.08, fairly good fit; 0.08–0.10, 0.067 0.067
revised models acceptable fit; >0.1, unacceptable fit
 Standardized regression weights (SRWs)
Variation,
Items PM CMC DSP UOP IP LCP LECP claims, and
stakeholder
VO17 0.712
VO16 0.532 performance
VO8 0.681
VO6 0.657
VO5 0.719
VO2 0.715
VO15 0.697
VO13 0.758
VO11 0.714
VO7 0.745
VO12 0.578
VO10 0.559
VO9 0.614
VO1 0.722
VO20 0.739
VO19 0.664
VO18 0.781
VO4 0.677
VO3 0.851
CL4 0.643
CL1 0.762
CL3 0.772
CL8 0.745 Table 5.
CL5 0.584 Standardized
CL2 0.741 regression weights in
CL7 0.704 the CFA model of the
CL6 0.828 VOs and CDs

Constructs CR 1 2 3 4 5

1. PM 0.831 0.452
2. CMC 0.819
0.173 0.531
3. DSP 0.714 0.350
0.038 0.386
4. UOP 0.773 0.164 0.309 0.165 0.532 Table 6.
Construct reliabilities,
6. IP 0.741 0.300 0.295
0.002 0.303 0.591
construct correlations
1. LCP 0.822 0.536 and average variance
2. LECP 0.809 0.366 0.518 extracted (AVE) of the
Note(s): CR 5 Construct reliability; Entries below the diagonal are correlations among constructs; Diagonal constructs of the VOs
entries are average variance extracted (AVE) and CDs

The SRWs, AVE and CR of the constructs of the PP and SP are also supplied in Table 7.
The results indicate that the constructs of the PP and SP ensure the construct validity.

5.2 Structural model and hypotheses

After the confidence in the measurement model is proven, a structural model is built and
tested to examine the hypothesized relationship among the constructs. The conceptual SEM
model with six hypotheses is described in Figure 2. The hypothesized relationships for the
structural model are set out based on evidence of their existence from previous studies as
follows:
ECAM The VOs adversely impacted the criteria of the PP such as project implementation
schedule, quality of the project, cost of the project and material management (Arain and
Pheng, 2005; Enshassi et al., 2010). The VOs might affect material management in
construction sites because of procurement delays. Procurement delays were common effects
of VOs related to new resources such as new materials and specialized equipment (Hester
et al., 1991). Arain and Pheng (2005) and Enshassi et al. (2010) also showed that VOs adversely
impact on the SP in terms of profits of the parties, rework and defects, payments, productivity
of work, relationship among parties. The VOs could lead to increased overhead expenses for
all stakeholders (Arain and Pheng, 2005), thereby decreasing their profits. In addition,
additional payments to contractors could be a potential consequence of the VOs in
construction projects (Arain and Pheng, 2005). This was due to the VOs being considered a
common source of additional work for contractors (O’Brien, 1998). Rework and defects were
also a consequence of the VOs. According to Clough and Sears (1994), they often happened in
construction projects because of the VOs. Productivity degradation was another problem that
appeared in construction projects due to interruption, delays and redirection of work
stemming from the VOs (Arain and Pheng, 2005). Furthermore, in severe cases, the VOs could
lead to disputes among parties (Fisk, 1997). Finally, they might affect the relationships among
parties (Arain and Pheng, 2005). Based on above literature, the corresponding hypotheses
include:
H1. The VOs have a direct influence on the PP.
H2. The VOs have a direct influence on the SP.

Constructs SRWs AVE CR

Project performance (PP) PP1 0.662 0.432 0.753

PP2 0.631
PP3 0.677
PP4 0.659
Stakeholder performance (SP) SP1 0.689 0.502 0.834
Table 7. SP2 0.638
SRWs, AVE and SP3 0.738
CR of the constructs of SP4 0.764
the PP and SP SP5 0.706

Variation order
(VOs)
H2

H1
Project Stakeholder
H5 performance
performance
H6 (SP)
(PP)
H3

Figure 2. H4
Hypothesized Claims/Disputes
SEM model (CDs)
Ilter (2012) observed that understanding and preventing disputes in construction can Variation,
improve the PP. Construction disputes had an effect on all stakeholders, including reduced claims, and
profits, increased costs and even reduced quality (Cakmak and Cakmak, 2014). Mashwama
et al. (2016) showed that the effects of construction disputes can be loss of profitability, loss of
stakeholder
productivity, schedule delays and cost overruns, breakdown in relationships among parties, performance
rework and so on. The effect on cost was especially significant (Ilter, 2012). Love et al. (2010)
showed that direct costs related to disputes range from 0.5 to 5 percentage of project’s
contract value, while indirect costs including lost productivity, stress, fatigue, loss of future
work, the cost of strained business relationships among parties and tarnished reputation can
cause even more harm to the project and parties (Ilter, 2012). These above discussions suggest
the corresponding hypotheses of:
H3. The CDs have a direct influence on the PP.
H4. The CDs have a direct influence on the SP.
Sergeant and Wieliczko (2014) showed that the VOs not only led to claims for payments due to
extra work, but also many other construction disputes arising from delays, interruptions,
defects. Priyantha et al. (2011) and Dickson et al. (2015) also found that the main cause of
disputes among the parties was the VOs. On the contrary, the CDs can also lead to the VOs.
Zaneldin (2020) stated that once a claim has been presented, the owner and the contractor can
come to an agreement regarding the claim and thus create VOs or amendments. These
suggest the following hypothesis:
H5. The VOs and CDs have a correlation with each other.
Up to now, there has not been enough evidence for the relationship between the PP and the
SP, however, this hypothesis is also set up to discover whether there is a real relationship
among them or not.
H6. The PP has a direct influence on the SP.
The appropriateness of the SEM model is also assessed by the GOF indexes (Table 4). The
satisfied results of the GOF tests of the SEM model are as follows, which has the ratio of x2/df
(which was 1.595), TLI (0.799), CFI (0.813) and RMSEA (0.066). Among the hypothesized
relationships, four relationships are confirmed, whereas the other two relationships proved
unacceptable (Table 8). The data verifies only the hypotheses that the VOs and CDs are
related to each other, the VOs and CDs directly influence the PP; and PP impacts the SP,
whereas the VOs and CDs do not impact on the SP (Figure 3).

6. Discussions and implications

6.1 Correlation between the VOs and CDs
Figure 3 shows that the VOs and CDs are positively correlated with a standardized coefficient
of 0.3. This shows that the VOs can lead to the CDs. By contrast, the CDs can also affect the
VOs. If the VOs were not handled or managed properly, they frequently resulted in claims and
disputes (Chan and Suen, 2005; Acharya et al., 2006). Indeed, according to Zaneldin’s (2020)
study, the VOs were the most severe source of claims in terms of the amounts requested by
contractors, accounting for 21% of all amounts requested by contractors for all claims.
Following the owner and contractor’s claims, the parties can reach an agreement on them and
thus create an amendment or additional variation order. The correlation between the VOs and
CDs implies that in order to improve the PP, managers should keep the VOs and CDs under
control simultaneously. This means that the PP improvement will not be effective if the
control of the VOs and CDs is separated and managers do not consider the interrelationship
between the VOs and CDs.
ECAM Before eliminating insignificant path After eliminating insignificant path
Direct Indirect Direct Indirect
effect effect P effect effect P
Standardized Standardized
Path Correlation regression weights Correlation regression weights

VOs ←→CDs 0.271 0.301

CDs→PP 0.540* ‒ 0.010 0.561* ‒ 0.009
VOs→PP 0.575* ‒ 0.031 0.492* ‒ 0.029
PP→SP 1.176* ‒ 0.065 0.738* ‒ 0.000
VOs→SP
0.471a ‒ 0.323 ‒ ‒ ‒
CDs→SP
0.123a ‒ 0.755 ‒ ‒ ‒
Table 8. VOs→PP→SP ‒ 0.676 ‒ ‒ 0.363 ‒
SEM standardized CDs→PP→SP ‒ 0.635 ‒ ‒ 0.414 ‒
regression weights Note(s): *Significant; aInsignificant

0.50 0.58 0.55 0.41 0.48

0.42

0.70 0.76 0.64 0.69 0.65

0.51 0.74 0.41
0.64
0.74 0.47
0.68
0.52
0.72 0.71 0.45
0.43 0.26 0.54 0.72
0.65 0.67

0.46 0.68
0.53
0.20

0.51 0.71

0.56 0.49

0.75 0.03 0.56 0.42

0.51 0.51
0.72
0.57 0.76 0.65
0.58
0.42 0.76
0.48 0.70 0.17
0.59
0.77
0.55
0.75
0.56
0.74 0.17 0.65
0.37 0.42
0.61

0.32 0.57

0.31 0.56
0.47

0.62 0.30
0.50
0.22 0.57
0.79
0.43 0.66

0.55
0.74 0.32

0.72 0.25
0.85
0.46 0.83 0.59
0.70 0.74
0.68
0.68 0.50 0.55 0.34

Figure 3.
Final structural model
showing the significant
paths with standard
regression weights
Note(s): Chi-square = 939.473; df = 583; P = 0.000; Chi-square/df = 1.611; GFI = 0.720;
TLI = 0.794; CFI = 0.809; RMSEA = 0.067

6.2 Impact of the VOs on the PP

Firstly, the relationship between the VOs and the PP is confirmed to be relatively strong with
a standardized coefficient value of 0.49 (Figure 3). PM (factor loading 0.51), IP (factor loading
0.50) and UOP (factor loading 0.47) have a significant impact on the PP. This implies that the
parties need to minimize the VOs caused by impediment, uncontrollable and management Variation,
problems to improve the PP of construction projects. claims, and
PM characteristics such as VO17, VO16, VO6, VO8, VO2 and VO5 all have a significant
impact on the PP, particularly project implementation schedule and cost of the project. In
stakeholder
Enshassi et al.’s (2010) study, conflicts between contract documents and ineffective performance
stakeholder communication were identified as causes for project delays and cost overruns.
Indeed, communication on the construction site is fraught with difficulties, including an
inability to coordinate information, a delay in updating new information, the use of out-of-
date drawings and poor coordination between the parties. Additionally, the unreasonable
arrangement of the construction site for subcontractors results in the subcontractors being
unable to work. The sequences of construction are then altered, which has a significant
impact on the master construction program. These can result in significant rework, additional
costs and a delay in progress.
Besides, the VOs regarding the IP (the obstinate nature of the investor, impedimental
decision-making process) have also a significant impact on the effective performance of
construction projects. In a developing country, investors in construction projects frequently
pressure their contractors to violate laws or regulations to gain roughly their own benefits
(construction permit violations). For instance, the owner may instruct the designers and
contractors to increase the number of building’s stories or extend the usable area beyond the
permitted limits. Additionally, failure by owners, consultants, or contractors to make timely
and prompt decisions can result in delays and can in turn lead to cost increases due to
variation orders. In short, it implies that the impediment problems can result in significant
disputes between the parties involved in the construction project and, consequently, lead to a
change in the scheduled implementation schedule, increasing the cost of rework and
degrading the project’s quality.

6.3 Impact of the CDs on the PP

The statistical result supports a bit higher effect of the CDs on the PP than that of the VOs (the
coefficient of the CDs to the PP reaches 0.56). LCP (factor loading 0.65) and LECP (factor
loading 0.57) have a detrimental impact on the PP. The problems here are the causes of the
CDs, i.e. CL8 (factor loading 0.75); CL3 (factor loading 0.77); CL1 (factor loading 0.76); CL4
(factor loading 0.65); CL6 (factor loading 0.83); CL7 (factor loading 0.70); CL2 (factor loading
0.74); and CL5 (factor loading 0.59). These findings imply that the causes of cost-related CDs
should be noted to improve the PP. This finding is consistent with previous research
conducted by Iyer and Jha (2005), Al-Sibaie et al. (2014) and Do et al. (2021). Poor commitment,
dishonesty and distrust among the parties have been discovered by Do et al.’s (2021) to have
an important impact on the overall judgment quality of the construction project. These
results extend previous research findings by demonstrating the detrimental effect of parties’
lack of commitment, experience and competence on the PP in the construction industry.
In terms of costs and schedule, contractors who anticipate unrealistic information for
construction projects result in plan passivity and a failure to respond timely. This, in turn, has
an effect on the project’s overall cost. Additionally, unrealistic time, cost and quality targets
imposed by clients may necessitate adjusting cost and schedule planning, resulting in
schedule delays and budget adjustments. Besides, according to Iyer and Jha’s (2005) study,
cash flow has been shown to be negatively impacted by inefficient payment methods. Any
payment delay may cause financial difficulties and have an adverse effect on cost and
schedule management. For instance, when the main contractor submits all required
documents for interim payment certificates (IPCs), the investor has decided not to pay and
deducts delay damages for the contractor’s delay. The main contractor then fails to pay
subcontractors on time. Following that, the main contractor relies on contractual provisions
ECAM regarding payment delays and the contractor’s right to suspend work to halt project work
due to IPC payment delays.
On the aspect of quality and material management, the dispute, for instance, appears when a
contract does not explicitly state material or equipment specifications but includes a clause or
sub-clause requiring the material or equipment to be satisfactory to the owner. The contractor
then submits a sample of material and equipment that meets the approval requirements. The
owner/consultant then rejects such materials or equipment due to their failure to meet the
investor’s specifications. Because of the dispute, material management and work quality may
be impacted and the contractor may require additional time to resubmit the RFI and RFA. In
addition, the risk allocation clause in the contract should be carefully considered because it has
a significant impact on the quality of the construction project. Unfair risk allocation occurs
frequently in unstable contracts, since owners have a plethora of options when selecting a
contractor. The owner transfers all risks, such as adverbial weather or the Covid-19 plague, to
the contractors. In the case that the contractors agreed and signed the unfair contract, there is a
chance that the contractors found ways to issue claims (e.g. construction method change,
material change, QA/QC process change) to obtain additional payment to cover their losses
during the construction phase. These imply that the terms regarding the allocation of risks
should be clear and fair to minimize the CDs, thereby ensuring the PP.

6.4 Impact of the PP on the SP

The results also confirm the existence of a strong relationship between the PP and the SP,
implying that excellent SP can only be directly achieved through higher PP. Achieving a higher
SP requires improved management of cost, quality, schedule and material, which are the criteria
of the PP. Furthermore, the VOs and CDs are also confirmed to play crucial roles in increasing
the SP. While the VOs and CDs do not have significant direct effects on SP in the model, they
have significant indirect effects via their influences on PP (Table 8). Therefore, there is a need to
manage the VOs as well as the CDs for improving the PP and SP. Contractors should
understand that the management of the VOs and CDs are interrelated, which should be
considered when implementing PP and SP. For example, during the excavation phase of the
actual case at project X (details in Table 9), an eight-deviation bored piles incident sparked a
lengthy debate over who was responsible for the incident (namely, an Owner - O, an Engineer/
Consultant - E, pile contractor - C1 and main contractor - C2). Following the incident, the Owner
and Engineer continuously issued numerous subjective instructions regarding improper
construction methods and placed the responsibility for dealing with the misaligned piles (e.g.
solutions, incurred costs, extension of progress) squarely on the shoulders of C2. Additionally,
the E issued numerous notices of delay (NOD) and extension of time (EOT) documents
identifying all causes and evidence of C2’s wrongdoing. In addition, the O reduced a portion of
the C2’s scope of work and assigned it to C3 contractor. On the contrary, C2 responsible for
earthwork construction stated that the incident was primarily caused by the bored pile
subcontractor (C1) failing to adhere to the design. Over the next eight months, C2 followed the
instructions, proposed solutions to this problem and coordinated the submission of NOD and
EOT documents to the O/E to claim increased costs and delays in progress. As a result,
relationships among the O, E and C2 were significantly impacted by disagreements over project
costs and progress. Finally, the implementation of project X was significantly impacted, as
costs incurred for increased by over 20%, the timeline was extended for more than a year and
the quality suffered due to C3’s incapacity (currently has not finished its work). The dispute was
not resolved yet, greatly affecting the performance of the parties involved (i.e. payment, profits,
relationship and productivity). Obviously, in project X, when the project encountered a serious
problem, the manager could quickly identify the direct cause as poor management and an
improper construction method and the indirect problem possibly under unfair risk allocation in
contracts. In addition, managers also quickly realize the impact of the problem on the progress,
 Project information
Description Project X Project Y

Project type High-end Condominium Urban railway project

Project scope 4 blocks, 36–42 floors with project area of 1.09 hectare 2.6 km underground and 17.1 km sky-train railway with 3 underground
and 11
overhead stations
Capital Domestic investment Foreign sponsor
Stakeholders Contractor C1: Pile contractor Consulting consortium CC: 05 foreign consulting contractors E1, E2,
Contractor C2: Main contractor E3, E4 and E5
Contractor C3: Nominated contractor
Causes of variation orders Poor management (PM) Poor management (PM)
þ Poor supervision and site management þ Poor communication
þ Poor communication þ Delay in feedback/approval RFI and RFA
þ Delay in feedback/approval RFI and RFA Impediment problems (IP)
Impediment problems (IP) þ Impedimental decision-making process
þ Obstinate nature of owner
Causes of claims/disputes Lack of commitment among parties (LCP) Lack of commitment among parties (LCP)
þ Adversarial relation between the contractor, the owner þ Adversarial relation between the contractor, the owner and the
and the supervision team supervision team
þ Unfair risk allocation in contracts þ Ambiguous risk balances in contractsLack of experience and
Lack of experience and competence of parties (LECP) competence of parties (LECP)
þ Unrealistic time/cost/quality targets þ Unrealistic information expectations (contractor’s)
þ Lack of competence of project participants þ Inappropriate payment modalities
þ Lack of competence of project participants
Project Cost of the project Increasing costs: over 20% Increasing costs: variation cost (over 50%)
performance Material management Eight deviation bored piles ‒
Project implementation Time-overrun: over 1 year Time-overrun: over 6 years
schedule
Quality of the project Bored pile work is not approved ‒
Redesign structure and construction methods to replace eight
deviated bored piles
Stakeholder Profits of the parties Participants are dissatisfied with profits due to prolonged The consultants are not satisfied with the project’s payment delay –
performance project, increased 20% costs due to conflicts between parties over 50% consultancy costs and as a result, profits are greatly affected
Rework and defects The project encounters a lot of defects and it takes over eight ‒
months to rework and redo
Payments The owner delayed to pay the contractor over one year due to The payment modalities are very complicated and relating to many
the issues related to the dispute of the parties ministerial agencies (delay over 6 years)
Productivity of work Poor productivity: bored pile work, Earth excavation, Productivity suffers due to unclear and complicated payment process
foundation construction and successor activities
Relationship between Relationship between the parties was affected, it is difficult to Relationship between the parties was affected, it is difficult to
the parties cooperate in the following projects cooperate in the following projects
performance
Variation,
claims, and
stakeholder

Table 9.

construction projects
Profile of X and Y
ECAM cost and quality of the project, as well as on the performance of the construction stakeholders.
This makes sense in terms of identifying critical root causes that need to be addressed quickly
to minimize the impact on the PP and that of SP following construction completion.
Furthermore, in the actual case of project Y, which started in 2013 and is expected to be
operational in 2020 (details in Table 9). Nevertheless, up to now, the project has faced many
difficulties and obstacles during its implementation (i.e. changes in the project’s scope, total
investment exceeds budget and payment settlement records) and has been forced to extend the
expected construction completion date until the end of 2026. In addition, because the state
capital payment process was quite complicated, leading to the problem of late payment from the
owner. Besides, the consulting consortium (CC) was composed of five foreign consulting firms,
namely, E1, E2, E3, E4 and E5. According to the consortium agreement, E1 owned 80.7% of CC
and served as the CC’s legal representative. The CC contract implementation period ended in
2017, but the contract has yet to be finalized. The two companies, E4 and E5, have completely
withdrawn from the project, so the consortium has only three members left. Payments for
variation work are unable to be made due to the addendum’s inability to be signed. The contract
terms made no provisions for a situation in which the consortium lacked sufficient members.
The CC repeatedly sent explanations and complaints notices to investors. The investor did not
completely resolve the consulting consortium’s complaints because the investor needed to
consult with numerous agencies, including at the central ministerial level. This resulted in
numerous disputes between the parties for an extended period and may lead in litigation if the
issue is not resolved quickly. As a result, the PP suffered significantly. Typically, progress was
delayed by at least six years, quality of work was compromised and costs more than doubled.
Obviously, based on the results of construction project Y, the managers should recognize
that the decrease in the PP is typically due to the VOs and CDs. It is highly recommended that
special attention be paid to identifying critical risk vulnerability factors, such as PM, CMC,
DSP, UOP, IP, LCP and LECP. In addition, because of the interactions among the VOs, CDs,
PP and SP; the parties should make a concerted effort to eliminate or handle the VOs, CDs that
affect both the PP and SP.

7. Conclusions
Twenty VOs, eight CDs, five criteria of the PP and five criteria of the SP are confirmed
specifically for construction projects. The factor analysis method discovers five constructs of
the VOs, namely the PM, the CMC, the DSP, the UOP and the IP. Besides, eight CDs are
classified into two main constructs, namely the LCP and the LECP. The structural model
indicates that the VOs and CDs have a direct effect on the PP. The degree of interrelationship
between the VOs and CDs is quite significant and has a direct effect on the PP. The PP is
found to have a direct effect on the SP, whereas the VOs and CDs have no relationship with
SP. The results of the study provide a rough overview of the impact of the VOs and CDs on the
implementation of the construction projects. Furthermore, the performance of the project
influences the performance of the parties involved after they have completed their portion of
the project’s work. The evaluation of the SP of an existing project can influence future
decisions to participate in tenders and collaborate on new projects.
This study has several implications for research and practice. The study adds to the body
of knowledge by exploring and confirming the relationships between the VOs, CDs, PP and
SP. This can be utilized to develop quantified models to examine the different management
strategies. Further research could benefit from the findings of the study, particularly the
identification and confirmation of the criteria of the SP, namely productivity of work,
relationship between the parties, profits of the parties, rework and defects and payments.
Based on the findings, construction practitioners can apply a variety of strategies to improve
their performance. Contractors, for instance, should realize that the decrease in the PP usually
originates from some of the VOs and CDs vulnerability factors. It is strongly recommended
that special attention be paid to identifying critical risk vulnerability factors, such as Variation,
inadequate project planning factors, change of method statement factors, design/scope claims, and
change factors, force majeure factors and owner impediment factors. Owners/consultants
and contractors, instead of constantly issuing NODs, or EOT notices, need to first jointly
stakeholder
review, evaluate, warn and resolve issues/risks that may arise during the life cycle of performance
construction projects. Management of the VOs and CDs is also interrelated but not
independent, which should be considered in the implementation of PP management.
Moreover, to achieve effective PP and SP, the parties need to have a collaborative relationship
and share risks together, as this can serve as motivation for them to achieve common goals.
This study has some limitations. Most of the survey data collected is mainly from
organizations originating in Vietnam, so the SEM results may not be generalized. The
research outlook can be broadened to focus on units of foreign origin to compare results.

References
Abdul-Malak, M.-A.U., Srour, A.H. and Demachkieh, F.S. (2020), “Decision-making governance
platforms for the progression of construction claims and disputes”, Journal of Legal Affairs and
Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 1-15.
Acharya, N.K., Lee, Y.D. and Im, H.M. (2006), “Conflicting factors in construction projects: Korean
perspective”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 543-566.
Ahmed, S.M. and Kangari, R. (1995), “Analysis of client-satisfaction factors in construction industry”,
Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 36-44.
Akhavian, R. and Behzadan, A.H. (2012), “An integrated data collection and analysis framework for
remote monitoring and planning of construction operations”, Advanced Engineering
Informatics, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 749-761.
Alnuaimi, A.S., Taha, R.A., Al Mohsin, M. and Al-Harthi, A.S. (2010), “Causes, effects, benefits, and
remedies of change orders on public construction projects in Oman”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 136 No. 5, pp. 615-622.
Al-Sibaie, E.Z., Alashwal, A.M., Abdul-Rahman, H. and Zolkafli, U.K. (2014), “Determining the
relationship between conflict factors and performance of international construction projects”,
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 369-382.
Anees, M.M., Mohamed, H.E. and Abdel Razek, M.E. (2013), “Evaluation of change management
efficiency of construction contractors”, Housing and Building National Research Center, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 77-85.
Arain, F.M. and Pheng, L.S. (2005), “The potential effects of variation orders on institutional building
projects”, Facilities, Vol. 23 Nos 11-12, pp. 496-510.
Arain, F.M. and Pheng, L.S. (2006), “A framework for developing a knowledge-based decision support
system for management of variation orders for institutional buildings”, Journal of Information
Technology in Construction, Vol. 11, pp. 285-310.
Aryal, S. and Dahal, K.R. (2018), “A review of causes and effects of dispute in the construction projects
of Nepal”, Journal of Steel Structure and Construction, Vol. 4 No. 144, pp. 2472-0437.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (2012), “Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation
models”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 8-34.
Bassioni, H.A., Price, A.D.F. and Hassan, T.M. (2004), “Performance measurement in construction”,
Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 42-50.
Cakmak, P.I. and Cakmak, E. (2014), “An analysis of causes of disputes in the construction industry
using Analytical Network Process”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Elsevier B.V.,
pp. 183-187.
Cao, M. and Zhang, Q. (2011), “Supply chain collaboration: impact on collaborative advantage and
firm performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 163-180.
ECAM Chan, A.P.C. and Chan, A.P.L. (2004), “Key performance indicators for measuring construction
success”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 203-221.
Chan, E.H.W. and Suen, H.C.H. (2005), “Dispute resolution management for international construction
projects in China”, Management Decision, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 589-602.
Chan, A.P.C. and Yeong, C.M. (1995), “A comparison of strategies for reducing variations”,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 467-473.
Chaphalkar, N.B., Iyer, K.C. and Patil, S.K. (2015), “Prediction of outcome of construction dispute
claims using multilayer perceptron neural network model”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 33 No. 8, pp. 1827-1835.
Cheung, S.O., Suen, H.C. and Lam, T.I. (2002), “Fundamentals of alternative dispute resolution
processes in construction”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 128
No. 5, pp. 409-417.
Cheung, S.O., Wong, P.S. and Lam, A.L. (2012), “An investigation of the relationship between
organizational culture and the performance of construction organizations”, Journal of Business
Economics and Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 688-704.
CII (1995), Qualitative Effects of Project Changes, Construction Industry Institute, University of Texas
at Austin, Austin, TX.
Clough, R.H. and Sears, G.A. (1994), Construction Contracting, 6th ed., John Wiley & Sons, New
York, NY.
Dickson, O.D., Gerryshom, M. and Wanyona, G. (2015), “Variations in civil engineering construction
projects in Kenya: causes and effects”, International Journal of Engineering Research and
Technology, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 1124-1129.
Do, S.T., Nguyen, V.T. and Likhitruangsilp, V. (2021), “RSIAM risk profile for managing risk factors
of international construction joint ventures”, International Journal of Construction
Management, pp. 1-15.
Do, S.T., Nguyen, V.T. and Dang, C.N. (2022), “Exploring the relationship between failure factors and
stakeholder coordination performance in high-rise building projects: empirical study in the finishing
phase”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 870-895.
Doloi, H., Iyer, K.C. and Sawhney, A. (2011), “Structural equation model for assessing impacts of
contractor’s performance on project success”, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 29, pp. 687-695.
Enshassi, A., Choudhry, R.M. and El-ghandour, S. (2009), “Contractors’ perception towards causes of
claims in construction projects”, International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 79-92.
Enshassi, A., Arain, F. and Al-Raee, S. (2010), “Causes of variation orders in construction projects in
the Gaza Strip”, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 540-551.
Fisk, E.R. (1997), Construction Project Administration, 5th ed., Prentice- Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis,
7th ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Halwatura, R.U. and Ranasinghe, N.P.N.P. (2013), “Causes of variation orders in road construction
projects in Sri Lanka”, ISRN Construction Engineering, Vol. 2013, pp. 1-7.
Hanif, H.A.S.H.I.M., Khurshid, M.B., Malik, S.O.H.A.I.L. and Nauman, S.H.A.Z.I.A. (2014), “Causes of
variation orders in construction of hydropower projects of Pakistan”, International Conference
on Management and Engineering (CME 2014), Shanghai, pp. 24-25.
Hanif, H., Khurshid, M.B., Lindhard, S.M. and Aslam, Z. (2016), “Impact of variation orders on time
and cost in mega hydropower projects of Pakistan”, Journal of Construction in Developing
Countries, Vol. 21 No. 2, p. 37.
Hanna, A.S., Calmic, R., Peterson, P.A. and Nordheim, E.V. (2002), “Quantitative definition of projects
impacted by change orders”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 128
No. 1, pp. 57-64.
Hasan, A. and Jha, K.N. (2013), “Safety incentive and penalty provisions in Indian construction Variation,
projects and their impact on safety performance”, International Journal of Injury Control and
Safety Promotion, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 3-12. claims, and
Hester, W.T., Chang, T.C. and Kuprenas, J.A. (1991), Construction Changes and Change Orders: Their
stakeholder
Magnitude and Impact, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, TX. performance
Hsieh, T.Y., Lu, S.T. and Wu, C.H. (2004), “Statistical analysis of causes for change orders in
metropolitan public works”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22 No. 8,
pp. 679-686.
Ibbs, W., Nguyen, L.D. and Lee, S. (2007), “Quantified impacts of project change”, Journal of
Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol. 133 No. 1, pp. 45-52.
Ikediashi, D.I., Mendie, A., Achuenu, E. and Oladokun, M.G. (2012), “Key performance indicators of
design and build projects in Nigeria”, Journal of Human Ecology, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 37-46.
Ikediashi, D.I., Ogunlana, S.O. and Udo, G. (2013), “Structural equation model for analysing critical
risks associated with facilities management outsourcing and its impact on firm performance”,
Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 323-338.
Illankoon, I.M.C.S., Tam, V.W., Le, K.N. and Ranadewa, K.A.T.O. (2019), “Causes of disputes, factors
affecting dispute resolution and effective alternative dispute resolution for Sri Lankan
construction industry”, International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 218-228.
Ilter, D. (2012), “Identification of the relations between dispute factors and dispute categories in
construction projects”, International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 45-59.
Iyer, K.C. and Jha, K.N. (2005), “Factors affecting cost performance: evidence from Indian construction
projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 283-295.
Iyer, K.C., Chaphalkar, N.B. and Joshi, G.A. (2008), “Understanding time delay disputes in construction
contracts”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 174-184.
Jalal, M.P., Noorzai, E. and Yavari Roushan, T. (2019), “Root cause analysis of the most frequent
claims in the building industry through the SCoP 3 E Ishikawa diagram”, Journal of Legal
Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, Vol. 11 No. 2, p. 04519004.
Keane, P., Sertyesilisik, B. and Ross, A.D. (2010), “Variations and change orders on construction
projects”, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction,
Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 89-96, doi: 10.1061/(asce)la.1943-4170.0000016.
Kim, S.Y. and Nguyen, V.T. (2018), “A structural model for the impact of supply chain relationship
traits on project performance in construction”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 170-183.
Kim, S.Y. and Nguyen, V.T. (2020), “Supply chain management in construction: critical study of
barriers to implementation”, International Journal of Construction Management, pp. 1-10.
Kumar Viswanathan, S., Panwar, A., Kar, S., Lavingiya, R. and Jha, K.N. (2020), “Causal modeling of
disputes in construction projects”, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in
Engineering and Construction, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 1-11.
Kumaraswamy, M.M. (1997), “Conflicts, claims and disputes in construction”, Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 95-111.
Le-Hoai, L., Dang, C.N., Lee, S.B. and Lee, Y.D. (2019), “Benchmarking claim causes against
contractors in emerging markets: empirical case study”, International Journal of Construction
Management, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 307-316.
Leung, M.Y., Ng, S.T. and Cheung, S.O. (2004), “Measuring construction project participant
satisfaction”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 319-331.
Lindhard, S. (2014), “Understanding the effect of variation in a production system”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 140 No. 11, pp. 1-8.
ECAM Love, P., Davis, P., Ellis, J. and Cheung, S.O. (2010), “Dispute causation: identification of pathogenic
influences in construction”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 17
No. 4, pp. 404-423.
Mahamid, I. (2017), “Effect of change orders on rework in highway projects in Palestine”, Journal of
Financial Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 62-76.
Maloney, W.F. (2002), “Construction product/service and customer satisfaction”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 128 No. 6, pp. 522-529.
Maqbool, R., Deng, X. and Ashfaq, S. (2020), “A risky output of variation orders in renewable energy
projects: identification, assessment and validation”, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 743,
p. 140811.
Mashwama, X.N., Aigbavboa, C. and Thwala, D. (2016), “Investigation of construction stakeholders’
perception on the effects and cost of construction dispute in Swaziland”, Procedia Engineering,
Vol. 164, pp. 196-205.
Masrom, M.A. and Skitmore, M. (2009), “Conceptual models of satisfaction level in construction”,
The Second Infrastructure Theme Postgraduate Conference: Conference Proceedings, Brisbane,
Queensland, 26 March 2009, Queensland University of Technology.
Memon, A.H., Rahman, I.A. and Hasan, M.F.A. (2014), “Significant causes and effects of variation
orders in construction projects”, Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and
Technology, Vol. 7 No. 21, pp. 4494-4502.
Mitkus, S. and Mitkus, T. (2014), “Causes of conflicts in a construction industry: a communicational
approach”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 110, pp. 777-786.
Mitropoulus, P. and Howell, G. (2001), “Model for understanding, preventing, and resolving project
disputes”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 127, pp. 223-231.
Mohamed, H., Ibrahim, A.H. and Soliman, A.A. (2014), “Reducing construction disputes through
effective claims management”, American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Vol. 2
No. 6, pp. 186-196.
Naji, K.K., Mansour, M.M. and Gunduz, M. (2020), “Methods for modeling and evaluating construction
disputes: a critical review”, IEEE Access, Vol. 8, pp. 45641-45652.
Ndihokubwayo, R. (2008), “An analysis of the impact of variation orders on project performance”,
Doctoral dissertation.
Oladapo, A.A. (2007), “A quantitative assessment of the cost and time impact of variation orders on
construction projects”, Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 35-48.
Oppong, G.D., Chan, A.P.C. and Dansoh, A. (2017), “A review of stakeholder management performance
attributes in construction projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 35 No. 6,
pp. 1037-1051.
Oyewobi, L.O., Jimoh, R., Ganiyu, B.O. and Shittu, A.A. (2016), “Analysis of causes and impact of
variation order on educational building projects”, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 14
No. 2, pp. 139-164.
O’Brien, J.J. (1998), Construction Change Orders, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Parikh, D., Joshi, G.J. and Patel, D.A. (2019), “Development of prediction models for claim cause
analyses in highway projects”, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering
and Construction, Vol. 11 No. 4, p. 04519018.
Priyantha, T.H.S., Karunasena, G. and Rodrigo, V.A.K. (2011), “Causes, nature and effects of variations
in highways”, Built-Environment Sri Lanka, Vol. 9 Nos 1-2, pp. 14-20.
Qureshi, S.M. and Kang, C.W. (2015), “Analysing the organizational factors of project complexity
using structural equation modelling”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 33
No. 1, pp. 165-176.
Raji, B., Mohamed, A.A. and Oseni, A.U. (2015), “Reforming the legal framework for construction
dispute resolution in Nigeria: a preliminary literature survey”, International Business,
Economics and Law, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 87-95.
Saseendran, A., Bigelow, B.F., Rybkowski, Z.K. and Jourdan, D.E. (2020), “Disputes in construction: Variation,
evaluation of contractual effects of ConsensusDOCS”, Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute
Resolution in Engineering and Construction, Vol. 12 No. 2, p. 04520008. claims, and
Sekaran, U. (2000), Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, 3rd ed., John Wiley,
stakeholder
New York. performance
Senouci, A., Alsarraj, A., Gunduz, M. and Eldin, N. (2017), “Analysis of change orders in Qatari
construction projects”, International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 280-292.
Sergeant, M. and Wieliczko, M. (2014), Construction Contract Variations, Informa Law from Routledge.
Sibanyama, G., Muya, M. and Kaliba, C. (2012), “An overview of construction claims: a case study of
the Zambian construction industry”, International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 12
No. 1, pp. 65-81.
Sibiya, M., Aigbavboa, C. and Thwala, W. (2015), “Construction projects’ key performance indicators:
a case of the South African construction industry”, Proceedings of the 2015 International
Conference on Construction and Real Estate Management, Lulea, Sweden, pp. 11-12, August.
Sinha, M. and Wayal, A.S. (1998), “Dispute causation in construction projects”, IOSR Journal of
Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE), November, pp. 54-58.
Ssegawa, J.K., Mfolwe, K.M., Makuke, B. and Kutua, B. (2002), “Construction variations: a scourge or a
necessity”, Proceedings of the First International Conference of CIB W107, pp. 11-13.
Stamatiou, D.R.I., Kirytopoulos, K.A., Ponis, S.T., Gayialis, S. and Tatsiopoulos, I. (2018), “A process
reference model for claims management in construction supply chains: the contractors’
perspective”, International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 382-400.
Sun, M. and Meng, X. (2009), “Taxonomy for change causes and effects in construction projects”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 560-572.
Takim, R. and Akintoye, A. (2002), “Performance indicators for successful construction project
performance”, 18th Annual ARCOM Conference, Vol. 2 No. 4, September.
Tanriverdi, C., Atasoy, G., Dikmen, I. and Birgonul, M.T. (2021), “Causal mapping to explore
emergence of construction disputes”, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, Vol. 27
No. 5, pp. 288-302.
Toor, S.ur R. and Ogunlana, S.O. (2010), “Beyond the ‘iron triangle’: stakeholder perception of key
performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public sector development projects”, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 228-236.
Wu, C.H., Hsieh, T.Y., Cheng, W.L. and Lu, S.T. (2004), “Grey relation analysis of causes for change
orders in highway construction”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 22 No. 5,
pp. 509-520.
Xiong, B., Skitmore, M., Xia, B., Masrom, M.A., Ye, K. and Bridge, A. (2014), “Examining the influence
of participant performance factors on contractor satisfaction: a structural equation model”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 482-491.
Yogeswaran, K. (1998), “Sources, causes and minimisation of contractual claims in civil engineering
projects in Hong Kong”, University of Hong Kong.
Zaneldin, E.K. (2020), “Investigating the types, causes and severity of claims in construction projects
in the UAE”, International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 385-401.

Corresponding author
Viet Thanh Nguyen can be contacted at: nguyenthanhviet@iuh.edu.vn

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