See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276113470

Causes of Delay in Construction Projects in the Oil and Gas Industry in the Gulf
Cooperation Council Countries: A Case Study

Article in Journal of Management in Engineering · May 2015

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000248

CITATIONS READS

184 6,628

2 authors, including:

Hamdi Bashir
University of Sharjah
78 PUBLICATIONS 1,036 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Project Mangement View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hamdi Bashir on 09 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Case Study

Causes of Delay in Construction Projects in the Oil

and Gas Industry in the Gulf Cooperation Council
Countries: A Case Study
Mohammed Ruqaishi 1 and Hamdi A. Bashir 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON on 06/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Several studies investigating the causes of delay in projects in the construction industry have been conducted worldwide. This
study investigates the causes of delay in construction projects in oil and gas processing facilities in Oman and serves as a case study for the
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Using a questionnaire, data were collected from 59 project managers employed in different
organizations in the oil and gas industry in Oman. The survey results showed a high degree of agreement among the perceptions of project
stakeholders, clients, contractors, and consultants on the causes of project delay, and there is no evidence to suggest that the causes of project
delay differ significantly according to organization size or organizational ownership. Moreover, seven factors were identified as the major
causes of project delay. Although six of these identified elements are general factors that can account for delay in any project in any industry,
one of them—poor interaction with vendors in the engineering and procurement stages—is found to be unique to construction projects in the
oil and gas industry. The findings of this study could be of value to organizations that are planning to conduct construction projects for oil and
gas processing facilities in Oman and other nations with similar environments, such as the GCC countries. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-
5479.0000248. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Delay; Construction projects; Oil and gas industry; Oman.

Introduction technology services, and outsourcing company, project delays and

Project delay is one of the most common problems in the construc-
tion industry worldwide. For example, Odeyinka and Yusif (1997)
reported that 7 out of 10 projects surveyed in Nigeria suffered
delays. According to Assaf and Al-Hejji (2006), 70% of the large
construction projects studied in Saudi Arabia experienced average
time overruns of between 10 and 30%. Further, Faridi and
Al-Sayegh (2006) revealed that 50% of the construction projects
studied in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) encountered delays.
According to a survey conducted by the U.S. management consult-
ing firm Booz Allen Hamilton, the leaders of 10 out of 20 compa-
nies from the United States, Europe, and Asia stated that 40% of
their oil and gas construction projects are plagued by significant
schedule and cost overruns (McKenna et al. 2006). Sambasivan
and Soon (2007) reported that 17.3% of the construction projects
in Malaysia encountered delays of over three months. In Oman, of
the 40 construction projects that were implemented for a major
public organization over the past three years, only 62% were com-
pleted within the stipulated time; no formal records are available for
explaining the cause of project delay in Oman.
Apart from its negative impact on project delivery, project delay
can cause cost overrun and disputes among project stakeholders
(Aibinu and Jagboro 2002; Sambasivan and Soon 2007). Accord-
ing to Accenture, a Boston-based global management consulting,
1
Consulting Engineer, Tebodin & Partner LLC, 24 Azaiba Plaza, Way
61, Al Ma’aridh St., PC 130, Al Athaibah, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman.
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Industrial Engineering and Management,
Univ. of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates (corresponding author).
E-mail: hbashir@sharjah.ac.ae
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 18, 2012; approved on
July 29, 2013; published online on August 1, 2013. Discussion period open
until September 7, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for indi-
vidual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Management in Engi-
neering, © ASCE, ISSN 0742-597X/05014017(8)/$25.00.
cost overruns in certain industries, such as oil and gas, could cost
companies trillions of dollars in lost investments. Moreover, proj-
ect delays and cost overruns in the oil and gas industry can also
hamper the economic development of countries whose economies
are heavily dependent on the lucrative oil and gas sector, such as
the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Examples of oil
and gas construction projects include the construction of gas treat-
ment units, refinery, and petrochemical plants. Although they are
similar to projects in any other industry in that all projects require
planning, organization, coordination, and control, oil and gas con-
struction projects have some unique characteristics: (1) they use
high-technology, made-to-order products; (2) since they are usually
conducted in remote desert areas, they encounter unique commu-
nication and logistical challenges; (3) they are technically complex
projects and usually comprise several subprojects, which involve
the integration of different technical fields (IEA 2006; Dey 2012);
and (4) they have considerable environmental and social impacts
(Dey 2012).
Literature Review
Since the problem of project delay is contextual, studies have
been conducted to investigate this problem in the construction in-
dustry in several countries. These include Nigeria (Mansfield et al.
1994); Thailand (Ogunlana et al. 1996; Toor and Ogunlana 2008);
Hong Kong (Chan and Kumaraswamy 1997; Lo et al. 2006);
Indonesia (Kaming et al. 1997); Lebanon (Mezher and Tawil
1998); Saudi Arabia (Al-Khalil and Al-Ghafly 1999; Assaf and
Al-Hejji 2006); Jordan (Al-Momani 2000; Odeh and Battaineh
2002); Ghana (Frimpong et al. 2003); Kuwait (Koushki et al. 2005);
UAE (Faridi and Al-Sayegh 2006); Malaysia (Alaghbari et al.
2007; Sambasivan and Soon 2007); Vietnam (Thuyet et al. 2007;
Le-Hoai et al. 2008; Luu et al. 2009); China (Zou et al. 2007);

© ASCE 05014017-1 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng.
 Egypt (Abd El-Razek et al. 2008); Canada (Jergeas 2008; Jergeas
and Ruwanpura 2010); Jordan (Sweis et al. 2008); South Korea
(Han et al. 2009); Gaza Strip (Enshassi et al. 2009); Zambia (Kaliba
et al. 2009); Iran (Pourrostam and Ismail 2011; Fallahnejad 2013);
Pakistan (Haseeb et al. 2011); and India (Dey 2012).
Thuyet et al. (2007), Jergeas (2008), Jergeas and Ruwanpura
(2010), Dey (2012), and Fallahnejad (2013) are perhaps the only
studies that focused on oil and gas construction projects. Thuyet
et al. (2007) conducted a survey to identify the risk factors affecting
oil and gas construction projects in Vietnam. Based on responses
from 42 top managers, project managers, functional managers, risk
experts, and project team members, the following five factors were
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON on 06/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
identified as the major causes of project delay: (1) bureaucratic
government systems and long project approval procedures, (2) poor
design, (3) incompetence of project teams, (4) inadequate tendering
practices, and (5) delay in internal approval processes from the
owners. It is evident that none of these factors can be considered
unique to oil and gas construction projects; these are general factors
that could cause delays in any project, regardless of industry.
As part of a large-scale research project for investigating cost
overruns and the front-end planning process of megaprojects in
the oil sands of Alberta, Canada, Jergeas (2008) surveyed inter-
national senior project manager ownership, engineering procure-
ment, and construction organizations in Canada, the United States,
the United Kingdom, Norway, Germany, Spain, Chile, India, and
Australia. Based on the analysis of the survey results, the causes for
cost and schedule overruns were classified under the following
three categories: (1) unrealistic or overly optimistic original cost
estimates and schedules; (2) incomplete scope definition or inad-
equate front-end loading and poorly completed front-end deliver-
ables, including milestone schedule slippage; and (3) inappropriate
project strategies for the mega–oil sands environment. Jergeas
and Ruwanpura (2010) expanded the work of Jergeas (2008)
and reclassified the causes of cost and schedule overruns into
the following five categories: (1) misplaced optimism, (2) mis-
guided objectives, (3) misaligned strategies, (4) misdirected execu-
tion, and (5) missing links.
Dey (2012) proposed an integrated analytical framework for
project risk management by conducting a case study on a petroleum
oil refinery construction project in central India. In this method, the
risk factors influencing time, cost, and quality were identified by
project executives using a cause-and-effect diagram for each project
work package. The identified factors then were compiled by the
risk management group to consolidate the list of factors for the en-
tire project. The list of factors was classified under five categories:
(1) technical risks; (2) financial, economic, and political risks;
(3) organizational risks; (4) natural hazards; and (5) statutory clear-
ance risks. The next major step was to rank the risks using the ana-
lytic hierarchy process (AHP), which enabled the identification of
the major factors influencing time, cost, and quality, including
scope change, engineering and design change, technology, and im-
plementation methodology selection.
Most recently, Fallahnejad (2013) conducted a survey to iden-
tify and rank the causes of delay in gas pipeline construction proj-
ects in Iran. Based on responses from 23 experts in executions
of oil/gas pipeline projects, it was found that the 10 most important
causes of project delay (from among 44 factors) were related to
imported materials, unrealistic project duration, client-related ma-
terials, land expropriation, change in orders, contractor selection
methods, payments to contractors, obtaining permits, late delivery
of ordered materials by suppliers, and contractors’ cash flows.
This brief review of the literature reveals the following:
• Factors affecting project delay vary from one country to
another.
© ASCE 05014017-2
J. Manage. Eng.
• There has not been any study to date that investigated the as-
sociation between organization size and factors causing project
delays. Compared to large organizations, small organizations
are usually short of capital and skilled staff, have little market
influence, and have only short-term objectives. On the other
hand, small organizations generally have better internal com-
munication, greater flexibility, and better relationships with
customers (Ahire and Golhar 1996; Haksever 1996; Gulbro
et al. 2000).
• There has not yet been any study that investigated the associa-
tion between the type of ownership and factors causing project
delays. As compared to private organizations, government-
owned organizations are less flexible, have more bureaucratic
decision-making processes, and usually lack skilled staff. How-
ever, government-owned organizations usually do not face any
shortage of funds.
• There has not been any study investigating the causes of project
delay in Oman.
Objectives and Development of Hypotheses
The main objective of this study is to investigate factors that cause
delays in construction projects in oil and gas processing facilities in
Oman, which serves as a case study for the Gulf GCC countries
(Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE).
These six countries, along with Iran and Iraq, hold 56 and 40%
of the world’s proven reserves of conventional oil and gas (IEA
2013). In addition to sharing common borders, the GCC countries
have relatively similar political systems and share a common lan-
guage, religion, and social values.
This investigation aimed at providing answers to the following
questions:
1. Are the causes of project delay perceived significantly dif-
ferently by project stakeholders, clients, contractors, and
consultants?
2. Do the causes of project delay differ significantly according to
organization size?
3. Do the causes of project delay differ significantly according to
organizational ownership?
4. What are the major causes of delay in construction projects for
oil and gas processing facilities in Oman?
To address the first three research questions, the following three
null hypotheses were developed:
• H1: Causes of project delay are not perceived significantly
differently by clients, contractors, and consultants.
• H2: Causes of project delay do not differ significantly according
to company size.
• H3: Causes of project cost overrun do not differ significantly
according to company ownership.
Methodology
This section describes the methodology for investigating the causes
of delay in construction projects in the oil and gas industry in
Oman. It focuses on the process of collecting data and the analysis
tools used.
Questionnaire Design and Data Collection
For controlling the data collected and facilitating analysis, it was
decided to employ a questionnaire with closed-type questions.
To ensure clarity and completeness of the questionnaire and the
applicability of the listed causes, which were identified using a
J. Manage. Eng.
 50–100 No more than
review of the literature, to the oil and gas construction projects in Employees, 2% 50 Employees,
Oman, a pilot study that included project managers from 10 differ- 5%
ent organizations was conducted. The responses received from
these organizations were used as a guide for refining the question-
naire. The first portion comprised questions regarding the respond- More than 1000
ent’s work experience and organization profile, including the Employees,
number of employees, scope of work, and owner type. The second 44% 101–500
portion was designed to address the main aspect being investigated Employees,
in this study—that is, causes of project delay. In this section, re- 42%
spondents were requested to indicate the level of importance of
44 possible causes of project delay using a 5-point Likert scale
(1 = unimportant, 2 = not very important, 3 = important, 4 = very
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON on 06/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

important, and 5 = extremely important). Based on the sources of 501–1000

delay, the factors causing project delay listed in the questionnaire Employees, 7%
were classified into eight main groups:
1. Client-related causes; Fig. 1. Response distribution based on organization size
2. Contractor-related causes;
3. Consultant-related causes;
4. Material-related causes;
5. Labor- and equipment-related causes; Joined State-
6. Contract-related causes; Venture, owned,
7. Contract relationship-related causes; and 10% 13%
8. External causes.
A very important step in the data collection process is to select
the sample size. The most effective way to ensure the generality of Public–Private, International,
29% 24%
results is to use a sufficiently large sample. However, in this type of
research, since the size of the population of interest is small, the
sample size can be relatively small as well. In addition to popula- Local Private,
tion size, the sample size depends on factors like minimum accept- 24%
able level of precision and confidence level. In this study, the
sample size was determined based on the most widely used rule
of thumb, “use as many subjects as you can get and you can afford” Fig. 2. Response distribution based on organization owner
(Olejnik 1984). Based on this rule, the questionnaire was sent to a
random sample of 210 project managers of client, contracting, and
consultant organizations in both public and private sectors using
Analysis Tools
multiple sources such as Web-based survey tools, electronic mail,
regular mail, and hand delivery. In order to increase the response To analyze the collected data, the following three nonparametric
rate, respondents were given the option to return either a soft copy statistical tools were used: the reliability test, the Kruskal-Wallis
or hard copy of the completed survey questionnaire. A total of 59 test, and the median. The reliability of the questionnaire was tested
respondents (27 from client organizations, 13 from consultant or- using Cronbach’s alpha, a coefficient of reliability. The Kruskal-
ganizations, and 19 from contracting organizations) returned the Wallis test was used for testing the null hypotheses, and the median
questionnaire, representing a 28% response rate. Unfortunately, was used for ranking purposes.
obtaining a larger sample size was not possible in this study. This Cronbach’s alpha is a measure of internal consistency; that is, it
has always been a problem in this type of research. For example, measures how closely related a set of items are as a group. A high
the sample sizes in Thuyet et al. (2007) and Fallahnejad (2013) Cronbach’s alpha is often used as evidence that the items measure
were 42 and 23, respectively. Thus, the sample size of the study an underlying construct. Cronbach’s alpha (α) is defined as
presented in this paper compares favorably with those reported
Pk 2 
in earlier relevant studies. k j¼1 σUj
α¼ 1− ð1Þ
Figs. 1 and 2 present organization size and owner type in 1−k σ2X
the sample distribution. As shown in Fig. 1, the responses were
received from companies of different sizes—that is, 5% of the where k is the number of questions; σ2Uj is the variance of scores on
responses were received from organizations with 50 or fewer em- each question; and σ2X is the total variance of overall scores.
ployees, 2% from organizations with 50 to 100 employees, 42% The Kruskal-Wallis test is one of the most appropriate tests for
from organizations with 101 to 500 employees, 7% from organi- analyzing Likert-scale responses and situations where the normal-
zations with 501 to 1,000 employees, and 44% from organizations ity assumption is unjustified (Montgomery 2005). The technique
with more than 1,000 employees. It is worth noting that organiza- tests the null hypothesis that the treatments (e.g., project stakehold-
tion size can be classified in different ways; however, the number ers) are identical against the alternative hypothesis that some of the
of employees is the most widely used classification. The sample treatments are different. In this technique, all the observations are
distribution by owner type is summarized in Fig. 2; 13% of the ranked in ascending order, with the average rank given to any value
responses were received from state-owned organizations, 29% from that results in a tie; then, the test statistic (KW) is computed
jointly owned public-private organizations, 24% from local pri- using Eq. (2)
vately owned organizations, 24% from international organizations, 12 Xm
and 10% from organizations that are joint ventures between inter- KW ¼ n R̄2 − 3ðN þ 1Þ ð2Þ
NðN þ 1Þ i¼1 i i
national and local private organizations.

© ASCE 05014017-3 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng.
 where m is the number of treatments; ni is the number of obser-
vations in the ith treatment; N is the total number of observations;
and Ri is the average of the ranks in the ith treatment.
Results and Discussion
This section presents the analysis of survey responses on the factors
that cause project delay in the following three areas:
• Reliability testing;
• Hypothesis testing; and
• Major causes of project delay.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON on 06/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Reliability Testing
The questionnaire reliability was tested using Cronbach’s alpha,
and the computed coefficient value was 0.964. This value was con-
sidered acceptable because it exceeded the minimum acceptable
level of 0.7 (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994).
Hypothesis Testing
To perform the three hypothesis tests, the primary data collected
from the second part of the questionnaire were analyzed from the
perspective of project stakeholders, organization size, and organi-
zational ownership using the Kruskal-Wallis test.
The Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted for testing the hypoth-
esis that the causes of project delay are not perceived significantly
differently by the following three project stakeholders: clients, con-
tractors, and consultants (H1). As shown in Table 1, the Kruskal-
Wallis test suggests that significant differences (at the 0.01 level
of significance) in the perceptions of the three stakeholders exist
for only the following four causes: (1) poor understanding of the
scope of work during tendering, (2) poor management of contrac-
tors’ schedules, (3) shortage of equipment, and (4) mistakes and
discrepancies in the contract document. The finding that significant
differences in perception existed only for 4 out of 44 causes indi-
cates relative agreement among the three stakeholders regarding the
causes of project delay.
To explore whether the causes of delay differed according
to organization size (H2), the Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted.
As shown in Table 1, at the 0.01 level of significance, there is no
evidence to suggest that the causes of project delay differ due to
organization size. The test also was conducted to test whether
the causes of project delay are perceived significantly differently
depending on organizational ownership (H3). As shown in Table 1,
at the 0.01 level of significance, there is no evidence to suggest that
there is an association between causes of project delay and organi-
zational ownership.
Major Causes of Project Delay
Based on the responses from all the respondents, the median was
computed for each factor. As shown in Table 2, the following fac-
tors had the highest median score (4.0) and thus were considered
the major causes of project delay in the oil and gas industry in
Oman: poor site management and supervision by contractors; prob-
lems with subcontractors; inadequate planning and scheduling of
the project by contractors; poor management of contractors’ sched-
ules; delay in delivery of materials; lack of effective communica-
tion among project stakeholders; and poor interaction with vendors
in the engineering and procurement stages. According to the
Kruskal-Wallis test results shown here, out of these seven major
causes, significant differences in the perceptions of project stake-
holders exist only for “poor management of contractor’s schedule.”
© ASCE 05014017-4
J. Manage. Eng.
Poor Site Management and Supervision by
Contractors
Poor site management and supervision by contractors also has been
identified as one of the major causes of project delay in other studies,
such as Faridi and Al-Sayegh (2006), Sambasivan and Soon (2007),
and Pourrostam and Ismail (2011). According to Mohamed and
Anumba (2006), poor site management can cause not only delays,
but also defects, disputes, and cost overruns. This problem can be over-
come by recruiting qualified site managers for running site operations
efficiently and maintaining an acceptable level of quality, allocating an
optimal number of workers per supervisor, and ensuring that the super-
visors’ authority matches their responsibilities. Site management can
also be improved through an integration of knowledge management
processes (Mohamed and Anumba 2006). Knowledge management
is defined by Davenport (1994) as “the process of capturing, distrib-
uting, and effectively using knowledge.” Other possible remedies for
resolving the problem of poor site management and supervision can
be found in previous studies, particularly Andersson et al. (1996).
Problems with Subcontractors
The involvement of subcontractors in construction projects is
common, particularly in large projects. The results of this study
show that problems with subcontractors is one of the major
causes of project delay, and this finding is consistent with that
of Sambasivan and Soon (2007) and Fallahnejad (2013). Problems
with subcontractors can be minimized by implementing a careful
selection process of qualified subcontractors that considers not
only cost, but also quality, safety, and environmental aspects. It is
also recommended by Enshassi et al. (2012) to select contactors
according to their previous experience, reputation, and capabilities
in terms of labor, equipment, and machinery. For the selection pro-
cess, using AHP as a decision support system is recommended
(Manoharan 2005). Moreover, subcontractors should be involved
in the initial stages of the project through a balanced flow of in-
formation between them and the main contactor (Enshassi et al.
2012). Most important, it is highly recommended that the contrac-
tor regularly monitor the activities of each subcontractor and indi-
cate any evidence of schedule overrun (Proctor 1996).
Inadequate Planning and Scheduling of Project by
Contractors
Previous literature (e.g., Assaf and Al-Hejji 2006; Sambasivan and
Soon 2007) also has determined inadequate planning and schedul-
ing of projects by contractors as one of the most important causes of
project delay. This problem can be overcome by implementing tech-
niques for managing projects with planning and scheduling soft-
ware packages, as well as by improving the communication of
schedule control data between construction site management and
field supervision (Kratt 1989). Moreover, contractors should estab-
lish a dedicated team for planning and follow-up of pending issues.
Poor Management of Contractors’ Schedules
Sambasivan and Soon (2007) also identified poor management of
contractors’ schedules as a major cause of project delay. Apart from
sound planning and monitoring, a requirement for effective manage-
ment of contractor schedules is that the roles, responsibilities, and
communication channels among project stakeholders are clearly
defined and documented. Rahman and Kumaraswamy (2005)
J. Manage. Eng.
 Table 1. Comparison by Project Stakeholders, Organization Size, and Owner
p-values of the Kruskal-Wallis tests
Comparison Comparison by Comparison by
by project organization organizational
Causes of delays stakeholders size ownership
Client-related causes
Delays in project financing and making payment for completed work 0.503 0.856 0.265
Client interfaces and change requests 0.318 0.211 0.795
Slow decision making by client 0.052 0.448 0.025
Unrealistic contract duration and imposition of requirements 0.118 0.554 0.620
Poor definition of subsurface input data 0.987 0.659 0.787
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON on 06/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Reengineering of different units caused by poor basic design package 0.155 0.324 0.907
Poorly defined or vague scope of work 0.135 0.329 0.152
Complications in the tendering process 0.315 0.400 0.160
Contractor-related causes
Poor understanding of scope of work during tendering 0.001 0.783 0.017
Difficulties in project financing 0.029 0.942 0.037
Poor site management and supervision 0.014 0.550 0.036
Problems with subcontractors 0.053 0.889 0.195
Inappropriate construction methods implemented 0.052 0.138 0.162
Inadequate planning and scheduling of project 0.010 0.845 0.035
Rework due to errors during construction 0.341 0.556 0.452
Inadequate experience of contractor 0.077 0.767 0.025
Unfamiliarity with government regulations and laws 0.245 0.618 0.164
Consultant-related causes
Delay in preparation and approval of drawings during construction work 0.624 0.725 0.294
Delay in conducting inspection and testing 0.804 0.519 0.750
Inadequate quality assurance/control 0.055 0.257 0.172
Lack of ownership in the project 0.515 0.355 0.516
Poor management of contractor’s schedule 0.004 0.837 0.014
Material-related causes
Change in material type during construction caused by poor quality of materials 0.160 0.392 0.140
Delay in delivery of materials 0.293 0.317 0.163
Labor and equipment-related causes
Shortage of labor (including engineers) 0.120 0.756 0.104
Low labor productivity 0.306 0.780 0.297
Shortage of equipment 0.003 0.832 0.010
Low efficiency of equipment 0.016 0.914 0.061
Contract-related causes
Mistakes and discrepancies in the contract document 0.002 0.441 0.021
Inadequate project duration defined in the original contract 0.256 0.669 0.614
Poor definition of payment milestones/distribution of cash flow 0.396 0.803 0.381
Inadequate delay penalties/poor incentives 0.522 0.356 0.436
Conflicts among joint owners of the project (for joint-venture projects) 0.337 0.784 0.215
Contract relationship-related causes
Major disputes and negotiation 0.360 0.794 0.538
Inappropriate overall organization structure linked to the project 0.451 0.425 0.839
Lack of effective communication among project stakeholders 0.014 0.259 0.026
Poor definition of interfaces resulting in scope creep 0.084 0.349 0.045
Poor interaction with vendors in the engineering and procurement stages 0.020 0.451 0.073
External causes
Effect of hot weather on construction activities 0.453 0.766 0.491
Unforeseen weather conditions 0.765 0.396 0.360
Effect of social and cultural factors 0.830 0.793 0.032
Problems with neighbors 0.033 0.183 0.015
Changes in government regulations and laws 0.617 0.626 0.439
Changes in market conditions 0.077 0.802 0.123

suggested that establishing a team that includes owners, consultants,
contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers might improve the man-
agement of contractors’ schedules.
Delay in Delivery of Materials
Delay in the supply of materials is identified as another important
cause of project delay. Frimpong et al. (2003), Sambasivan and
Soon (2007), and Zou et al. (2007) also identified this as a cause
of project delay. Although this factor could delay any construction
project, it is compounded in oil and gas projects by transportation
problems due to the remote location of construction sites with little
or no transport infrastructure and by complications in project buy-
out management because most of the materials required for these
types of projects are usually imported from overseas. To deal
with these two issues effectively, it is highly recommended that
a management group be formed specifically for logistics planning

© ASCE 05014017-5 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng.
 Table 2. Median Scores
Causes of delay
Client-related causes
Delays in project financing and making payment
for completed work
Client interfaces and change requests
Slow decision making by client
Unrealistic contract duration and imposition of
requirements
Poor definition of subsurface input data
Reengineering of different units caused by poor
basic design package
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON on 06/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Poorly defined or vague scope of work
Complications in the tendering process
Contractor-related causes
Poor understanding of scope of work during
tendering
Difficulties in project financing by contractor
Poor site management and supervision by
contractor
Problems with subcontractors
Inappropriate construction methods implemented
by contractor
Inadequate planning and scheduling of project by
contractor
Rework due to errors during construction
Inadequate experience of contractor
Unfamiliarity with government regulations and laws
Consultant-related causes
Delay in preparation and approval of drawings
during construction work
Delay in performing inspection and testing
Inadequate quality assurance/control
Lack of ownership in the project
Poor management of contractor’s schedule
Material-related causes
Change in material type during construction caused
by poor quality of materials
Delay in delivery of materials
Labor- and equipment-related causes
Shortage of labor
Low labor productivity
Shortage of equipment
Low efficiency of equipment
Contract-related causes
Mistakes and discrepancies in contract document
Inadequate project duration defined in original
contract
Poor definition of payment milestones/distribution
of cash flow
Inadequate delay penalties/poor incentives
Conflicts among joint owners of the project (for
joint-venture projects)
Contract relationship-related causes
Major disputes and negotiation
Inappropriate overall organization structure linked
to the project
Lack of effective communication among project
stakeholders
Poor definition of interfaces causing scope creep
Poor interaction with vendors in the engineering
and procurement stages
External causes
Effect of hot weather on construction activities
Unforeseen weather conditions
Effect of social and cultural factors
Problems with neighbors
Changes in government regulations and laws
Changes in market conditions
© ASCE
(Heimer et al. 1978) and that an appropriate management buyout
Median system be developed (Hu et al. 2008).
2
Lack of Effective Communication among Project
3 Stakeholders
3
3 Undoubtedly, effective communication among project stake-
holders is crucial for project success. Consistent with the findings
3 of Sambasivan and Soon (2007), Oman’s oil and gas construction
3 projects suffer from poor communication among project stakehold-
ers. This communication problem invariably leads to rework, and
3 thus project delay. Therefore, in order to minimize the risk of
3 project delay, it is imperative to establish appropriate formal com-
munication channels among all project stakeholders during the
3 conceptual phase. It is also recommended that informal communi-
cation channels be established since they enable easier information
3
4 flow within a shorter span of time (Al-Rawas and Easterbrook
1996; Bassi et al. 2012).
4
3
Poor Interaction with Vendors in the Engineering
4 and Procurement Stages
3 Poor interaction with vendors in the engineering and procurement
3 stages has not been identified as a major cause of project delay
3 in any previous study. Therefore, this factor could be considered
unique to construction projects in the oil and gas industry. Since the
3
oil and gas industry is characterized by the use of high-technology,
3 made-to-order products, the involvement of vendors in the initial
3 stages of the project is necessary to overcome this problem. This
3 is because such involvement enables the identification of require-
4 ments and resolution of technical issues at an early stage, thereby
avoiding any negative impacts on cost and schedule at a subsequent
3 stage in the project.
4
Conclusion
3
3 Project delay is one of the most common problems in the construc-
3
tion industry worldwide. The literature review in this paper re-
3
vealed that although considerable research has been conducted
3 to investigate the causes of project delay in the construction indus-
3 try worldwide, only five studies have focused on oil and gas con-
struction projects to identify these causes thus far. Furthermore, no
3 study has investigated this issue in any of the GCC countries.
Using a questionnaire, data were collected from 59 managers of
3 construction projects for oil and gas processing facilities in Oman,
3 which served as a case study for the GCG countries in the present
research. The analysis of survey responses showed that there is a
high degree of agreement among the perceptions of project stake-
3
holders, clients, contractors, and consultants on the causes of proj-
3
ect delay, and there is no evidence to suggest that the causes of
4 project delay differ significantly according to organization size or
organizational ownership.
3 The results also revealed that the following seven major factors
4 are responsible for project delay: (1) poor site management and
supervision by contractors, (2) problems with subcontractors,
(3) inadequate planning and scheduling of projects by contractors,
3 (4) poor management of contractors’ schedules, (5) delay in deliv-
2 ery of materials, (6) lack of effective communication among project
2 stakeholders, and (7) poor interaction with vendors in the engineer-
2
ing and procurement stages.
2
The first six factors are considered general factors that could
3
affect any type of project, whereas the last one, “poor interaction
05014017-6 J. Manage. Eng.
J. Manage. Eng.
 with vendors in the engineering and procurement stages,” is spe-
cific to the oil and gas industry, as construction projects in this
industry are characterized by the use of high-technology, made-
to-order products.
Although this research was conducted to identify the major
causes of delays in construction projects for oil and gas processing
facilities in Oman, the results are likely to be applicable to construc-
tion projects implemented in any of the GCC countries.
Last but not least, although the sample size used in this
study compares favorably with those in earlier studies, additional
empirical studies are necessary for validating the generality of
these results.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON on 06/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
References
Abd El-Razek, M., Bassioni, H., and Mobarak, A. (2008). “Causes of delay
in building construction projects in Egypt.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:11(831), 831–841.
Ahire, S. L., and Golhar, D. Y. (1996). “Quality management in large versus
small firms.” J. Small Bus. Manage., 34(2), 1–13.
Aibinu, A. A., and Jagboro, G. O. (2002). “The effects of construction de-
lays on project delivery in the Nigerian construction industry.” Int. J.
Proj. Manage., 20(8), 593–599.
Alaghbari, W., Kadir, M., Salim, A., and Ernawati, S. (2007). “The sig-
nificant factors causing delay of building construction projects in
Malaysia.” Eng. Construct. Architect. Manage., 14(2), 192–206.
Al-Khalil, M. I., and Al-Ghafly, M. A. (1999). “Delay in public utility
projects in Saudi Arabia.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 17(2), 101–106.
Al-Momani, A. H. (2000). “Construction delay: A quantitative analysis.”
Int. J. Proj. Manage., 18(1), 51–59.
Al-Rawas, A., and Easterbrook, S. (1996). “Communication problems in
requirements engineering: A field study.” Proc., 1st Westminster
Conf. Prof. Aware. Software Eng., Royal Society, Westminster Univ.,
London.
Andersson, C. A., Miles, D., and Ward, J. (1996). Site management hand-
book, International Labor Office, Geneva.
Assaf, S. A., and Al-Hejji, S. (2006). “Causes of delay in large construction
projects.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 24(4), 349–357.
Bassi, A., Howard, R., Geneletti, D., and Ferrari, S. (2012). “UK and Italian
EIA systems: A comparative study on management practice and perfor-
mance in the construction industry.” Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., 34,
1–11.
Chan, D., and Kumaraswamy, M. (1997). “A comparative study of causes
of time overruns in Hong Kong construction projects.” Int. J. Proj.
Manage., 15(1), 55–63.
Davenport, T. H. (1994). “Saving ITU’s soul: Human-centered information
management.” Harvard Bus. Rev., 72(2), 54–62.
Dey, P. K. (2012). “Project risk management using multiple criteria
decision-making technique and decision tree analysis: A case study
of Indian oil refinery.” Prod. Plann. Contr. Manage. Oper., 12(12),
903–921.
Enshassi, A., Al-Najjar, J., and Kumaraswamy, M. (2009). “Delays and
cost overruns in construction projects in the Gaza Strip.” J. Fin.
Manage. Prop. Constr., 14(2), 126–151.
Enshassi, A., Arain, F., and Tayeh, B. (2012). “Major causes of problems
between contractors and subcontractors in the Gaza Strip.” J. Fin.
Manage. Prop. Constr., 17(1), 92–112.
Fallahnejad, M. H. (2013). “Delay causes in Iran gas pipeline projects.”
Int. J. Proj. Manage., 31(1), 136–146.
Faridi, A. S., and Al-Sayegh, S. M. (2006). “Significant factors causing
delay in the UAE construction industry.” Constr. Manage. Econ.,
24(11), 1167–1176.
Frimpong, Y., Oluwoye, J., and Crawford, L. (2003). “Causes of delay and
cost overrun in construction of ground water projects in a developing
countries: Ghana as a case study.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 21(5),
321–326.
Gulbro, R. D., Shonesy, L., and Dreyfus, P. (2000). “Are small manufac-
turers failing the quality test?” Ind. Manage. Data Syst., 100(2), 76–80.
© ASCE 05014017-7
J. Manage. Eng.
Haksever, C. (1996). “Total quality management in the small business
environment.” Bus. Horizons, 39(2), 33–41.
Han, S. H., Yun, S., Kim, H., Kwak, Y. H., Park, H. K., and Lee,
S. H. (2009). “Analyzing schedule delay of mega project: Lessons
learned from Korea train express.” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage.,
56(2), 243–256.
Haseeb, M., Xinhai-Lu, Bibi, Maloof-ud-Dyian, A., and Rabbani, W.
(2011). “Problems of projects and effects of delays in the construc-
tion industry of Pakistan.” Australian J. Bus. Manage. Res., 1(5),
41–50.
Heimer, J. A., Bryan, L. A., and Weeks, J. D. (1978). “Logistics problems
in developing remote oil fields—A case history from Prudhoe Bay.”
J. Petrol. Technol., 30(6), 851–859.
Hu, J., Ren, Z., and Shen, L. (2008). “Impacts of overseas management
structures on project buyout management: Case studies of Chinese
international contractors.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9364(2008)134:11(864), 864–875.
International Energy Agency (IEA). (2006). World energy outlook, Paris.
International Energy Agency (IEA). (2013). World energy outlook, Paris.
Jergeas, G. (2008). “Analysis of the front-end loading of Alberta mega oil
sands projects.” Proj. Manage. J., 39(4), 95–104.
Jergeas, G., and Ruwanpura, J. (2010). “Why cost and schedule overruns
on mega oil sands projects?” Pract. Period Struct. Des. Constr.,
10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000024, 40–43.
Kaliba, C., Muya, M., and Mumba, K. (2009). “Cost escalation and
schedule delays in road construction projects in Zambia.” Int. J. Proj.
Manage., 27(5), 522–531.
Kaming, P. F., Olomolaiye, P. O., Holt, G. D., and Harris, F. C. (1997).
“Factors influencing construction time and cost overruns on high-rise
projects in Indonesia.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 15(1), 83–94.
Koushki, P. A., Al-Rashid, K., and Kartam, N. (2005). “Delays and cost
increases in the construction of private residential projects in Kuwait.”
Constr. Manage. Econ., 23(3), 285–294.
Kratt, T. J. (1989). “Poor communication of schedule and cost control data
between construction site management and field supervision improved
by the weekly cost and schedule meeting for direct labor supervisors.”
Proc., 1st Const. Cong., ASCE, San Francisco, CA.
Le-Hoai, L., Lee, Y. D., and Lee, J. Y. (2008). “Delay and cost overruns in
Vietnam large construction projects: A comparison with other selected
countries.” KSCE J. Civ. Eng., 12(6), 367–377.
Lo, T. Y., Fung, I. W. H., and Tung, K. C. F. (2006). “Construction delays
in Hong Kong civil engineering projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:6(636), 636–649.
Luu, V. T., Kim, S., Tuan, N. V., and Ogunlana, S. O. (2009). “Quantifying
schedule risk in construction projects using Bayesian belief networks.”
Int. J. Proj. Manage., 27(1), 39–50.
Manoharan, R. (2005). “Subcontractor selection method using analytic
hierarchy process.” M.Sc. thesis, Univ. Teknologi Malaysia, Johor,
Malaysia.
Mansfield, N. R., Ugwu, O. O., and Doran, T. (1994). “Causes of delay and
cost overruns in Nigerian construction projects.” Int. J. Proj. Manage.,
12(4), 254–260.
McKenna, M. G., Wilczynski, H., and VanDerSchee, D. (2006). Capital
project execution in the oil and gas industry, Booz Allen Hamilton,
Houston.
Mezher, T. M., and Tawil, W. (1998). “Causes of delays in the construc-
tion industry in Lebanon.” Eng. Construct. Architect. Manage., 5(3),
352–360.
Mohamed, S. F., and Anumba, C. J. (2006). “Potential for improving
site management practices though knowledge management.” Constr.
Innov., 6(4), 232–249.
Montgomery, D. C. (2005). Design and analysis of experiments, Wiley,
New York.
Nunnally, J. C., and Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory,
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Odeh, A. M., and Battaineh, H. T. (2002). “Causes of construction delay:
Traditional contracts.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 20(1), 67–73.
Odeyinka, H. A., and Yusif, A. (1997). “The causes and effects of construc-
tion delays on completion cost of housing projects in Nigeria.” J. Fin.
Manage. Property Constr., 2(3), 31–44.
J. Manage. Eng.
 Ogunlana, S., Promkuntong, K., and Jearkjirm, V. (1996). “Construction
delays in a fast-growing economy: Comparing Thailand with other
economies.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 14(1), 37–45.
Olejnik, S. F. (1984). “Planning educational research: Determining the nec-
essary sample size.” J. Exp. Educ., 53(1), 40–48.
Pourrostam, T., and Ismail, A. (2011). “Significant factors causing and ef-
fects of delay in Iranian construction projects.” Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci.,
5(7), 450–456.
Proctor, J. R. (1996). “Golden rule of contractor-subcontractor relations.”
Pract. Period Struct. Des. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0680(1996)
1:1(12), 12–14.
Rahman, M., and Kumaraswamy, M. (2005). “Assembling integrated
project teams for joint risk management.” Constr. Manage. Econ.,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON on 06/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Sambasivan, M., and Soon, Y. W. (2007). “Causes and effects of delays in
Malaysian construction industry.” Int. J. Proj. Manage., 25(5), 517–526.
Sweis, G., Sweis, R., Abu Hammad, A., Shboul, A. (2008). “Delays in
construction projects: The case of Jordan.” Int. J. Proj. Manage.,
26(4), 665–674.
Thuyet, N. V., Ogunlana, S. O., and Dey, P. K. (2007). “Risk management
in oil and gas construction projects in Vietnam.” Int. J. Energy Sector
Manage., 1(2), 175–194.
Toor, S., and Ogunlana, S. (2008). “Problems causing delays in major
construction projects in Thailand.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 26(4),
395–408.
Zou, P. X. W., Zhang, G., and Wang, J. (2007). “Understanding the key
risks in construction project management in China.” Int. J. Proj.

23(4), 365–375. Manage., 25(6), 610–614.

© ASCE 05014017-8 J. Manage. Eng.

View publication stats J. Manage. Eng.