International Journal of Construction Management

ISSN: 1562-3599 (Print) 2331-2327 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjcm20

Analysis of interaction among the factors affecting

delay in construction projects using interpretive
structural modelling approach

Abhishek Shrivas & Harish Kumar Singla

To cite this article: Abhishek Shrivas & Harish Kumar Singla (2020): Analysis of interaction among
the factors affecting delay in construction projects using interpretive structural modelling approach,
International Journal of Construction Management, DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2020.1728486

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1728486

Published online: 22 Feb 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjcm20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1728486

Analysis of interaction among the factors affecting delay in construction projects

using interpretive structural modelling approach
Abhishek Shrivas and Harish Kumar Singla
National Institute of Construction management and research, Pune, India

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This article identifies and analyse the critical factors affecting delay in construction projects in India and Interpretive structural
develops a model based on the mutual interaction of these factors using interpretive structural modelling modelling (ISM); cross-
approach. The article also identifies the ‘driving factors’ (i.e. the factors that influence the other factors) impact matrix multiplication
(MICMAC); delay;
and the ‘dependent factors’ (i.e. the factors that are influenced by others) using MICMAC analysis. Twelve construction; pro-
factors are identified as the most critical factors affecting delay through literature review and expert opin- ject management
ion. An ISM model is developed, with the help of five experts, (three from industry and two from aca-
demia). The findings of ISM suggest that lack of proper construction methodology and sequencing is the
root cause (i.e. driving factor) that is causing delay, hence at the bottom of the model. Lack of defined
project management plan, lack of proper contracting strategy, inter dependencies and evaluation of the
contractor not considered in advance and poor project monitoring, are intermediate causes positioned at
the middle of the model. Overlook of design review timelines, shortage of material, poor contract man-
agement, conflict between owners and other party, rework due to non-compliance in quality or poor
workmanship and poor site management and supervision are the dependent factors getting affecting by
level two factors as well have an interrelationship among themselves.

Introduction that if the delay problem in projects is controlled, it can lead to

The construction industry has always remained a high risk and
low margin industry (Jha and Devaya 2008). According to
KPMG’s 2015 global construction project owner’s survey, just
25% of the projects came within ten percent of their original
deadlines in the past three years. According to Assaf and Al-
Hejji (2006), ‘delay could be defined as the time overrun either
beyond completion date specified in a contract, or beyond the
date that the parties agreed upon for delivery of a project. It is a
project slipping over its planned schedule and is considered as
common problem in construction projects’. Delay is also defined
as an ‘act or event which extends required time to perform or
complete work of the contract manifests itself as additional days
of work’ by Zack (2003). According to Mahamid et al. (2012),
delay in construction projects is a universal phenomenon. Delays
happen to small and large projects in developing and developed
nations, and are usually accompanied by cost overruns. Delay
has a negative effect on all stakeholders of a project such as cli-
ent, contractor and consultant in terms of project progress, rela-
tionships, communication among parties, and on financial
aspects, which sometimes may develop into serious disputes or
legal battles in court (Semple et al. 1994; Yates and
Epstein 2006).
Delay in any form leads to loss of revenue for client and
excess cost of overheads for the contractor. In some cases, there
is wastage and obsolesce of material due to delay. All in all,
delayed project delivery is not good for any stakeholder in the
construction projects. Kumaraswamy and Chan (1998) suggests
improved productivity.
Projects in any area of work are prone to delay, however, the
chances of delay is much higher in case of construction projects
as these projects are not executed in closed environment as in
the case of manufacturing industry, rather the work is executed
in open site. Construction work involve creation of complex
structures such as dams, buildings, plants, bridges, roads, airports
to name a few. At the same time, delay should not be considered
as usual or unavoidable. Delay as a problem must be addressed
by companies before it becomes huge and start affecting the cost,
quality of work and relationships with stakeholders that may
lead to disputes.
Knowing the importance of delay and how a delayed project
can lead to cost overruns and other issues, companies have
attempted to address this issue for long time now and this topic
has always been an area of active research for academicians.
However, despite all efforts, the projects in India and across the
globe are suffering from the issue of time overruns i.e. delay.
The Indian construction industry contributes significantly to
the gross domestic product (appx. 6%), contributes 2.13% to
exports and is one of the largest employment generators. The
role of construction industry is ever increasing in India with
government of India setting huge targets for development of
infrastructure facilities like the development of smart cities, up-
gradation of existing railway stations, renovation of existing air-
ports and development of green field airports, development of
new cities, connecting major cities with metro rail for urban
transport etc. India has set an overwhelming goal of investing

CONTACT Harish Kumar Singla hsingla25@gmail.com

ß 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A. SHRIVAS AND H. K. SINGLA
USD one trillion in infrastructure during the 12th five year plan
period (Source: MOSPI annual report 14–15, 16–17). The gov-
ernment is giving a lot of importance to infrastructure sector like
they had never done before in the past.
However, despite all efforts of government, the projects in India
still suffer from problem of delay. Therefore, knowing how import-
ant the construction sector is to India, the authors have attempted
to undertake the study on understanding the interrelation among
factors affecting delay in construction projects in India.
Need and objective of the study
The construction sector is of immense importance to India and
knowing how delayed projects can cause a major bottleneck in
the economic development of a country; the authors have
attempted to undertake this study.
The objectives of the study are twofold. At first authors want
to identify the factors affecting delay in construction industry in
India. This is being done by authors through literature review
and expert opinion. Most of the studies in the past, which have
undertaken similar work, have identified and ranked factors
affecting delay in construction projects using the conventional
approaches like mean score, median, frequency index or relative
importance index (RII). However, very limited work has been
done by researchers to find the interrelationship among these
factors affecting delay. Kalidindi (2016), found the interrelation-
ships of factors causing delays in the relocation of utilities using
a cognitive mapping approach. This cognitive mapping approach
is useful in finding the interrelationship among factors, but it
does not explain about the driving and dependent factors.
Interpretive structural model (ISM) along with MICMAC is an
approach that identifies both the driving and dependent factors
as well as has the potential to facilitate strategies to overcome
delays. Therefore, the authors have attempted to identify the
interrelationship among factors affecting delay using ISM and
further used MICMAC to find the driving and dependent fac-
tors. This can help all the stakeholders of construction projects
to understand the root cause of the problem.
The rest of the study is divided into five sections. In section
one; previous studies that have identified factors affecting delay
are discussed so as to come up with a comprehensive list of fac-
tors affecting delay in construction projects. The section is fol-
lowed by methodology adopted in the study. In section three,
authors discuss about interrelationship among variables and why
ISM methodology is better over other methods. In section four,
the ISM framework is developed based on a pre discussed meth-
odology followed by section five which concludes the article and
discusses the implications of this for construction sector.
Literature review
The importance of delay in construction projects and the factors
affecting delay are explored by many researchers in the past. The
authors reviewed 25 recent articles and based on the review,
identified most important factors that are affecting delay in con-
struction projects. Few articles dates back to 1994, but the
authors have mostly relied on the recent work on delay in
construction.
Mansfield et al. (1994) studied the causes of delay and cost
overruns by taking client, consultant and contractors into con-
sideration and found that shortage of material, poor project
monitoring and control and poor contract management were the
most important items agreed by all three three stakeholders of a
project. Assaf et al. (1995) studied causes of delay and catego-
rized them into nine major groups: financing, materials, contrac-
tual relationships, changes, government relations, manpower,
scheduling and control, equipment and environment. Bordoli
and Baldwin (1998) examined the factors affecting delay in
building projects in the United States and found that weather
conditions, labour supply and sub-contractors were the major
causes of delays. Satyanarayana and Iyer (1996) and Iyer and Jha
(2005) highlighted the conflict between owners and other party
and poor site management and supervision were the factors
causing delay. Pickavance (2000) identified poor site manage-
ment as a major reason for delay. Frimpong et al. (2003) identi-
fied factors affecting delay for groundwater construction projects
in Ghana. Based on the survey responses and relative importance
weight (RIW) method they found that monthly payment difficul-
ties from agencies; poor contractor management; material pro-
curement; poor technical performances; and escalation of
material prices were factors affecting delay. Assaf and Al-Hejji
(2006) did a field survey in Saudi Arabia to determine the causes
of delay and their importance according to each of the project
participants, i.e. the owner, consultant and the contractor. The
field survey conducted included 23 contractors, 19 consultants
and 15 owners. Based on the importance index 73 causes of
delay were ranked. They found that shortage and low productiv-
ity of labour and site management and supervision were the
most critical factors affecting delay from contractors perspective.
While, Aibinu and Odeyinka (2006) and Lo et al. (2006) sug-
gested that site related delay factors such as extreme weather
conditions, unforeseen ground conditions and delays in provid-
ing design information and rework due to non-compliance in
quality or poor workmanship leads to delay. Sambasivan and
Soon (2007), based on the survey identified ten most critical fac-
tors causing delay namely contractor’s improper planning, con-
tractor’s poor site management, inadequate contractor
experience, inadequate client’s finance and payments for com-
pleted work, problems with subcontractors, shortage in material,
labour supply, equipment availability and failure, lack of commu-
nication between parties, and mistakes during the construction
stage. The study was conducted for Malaysian construction
industry. Ernawati et al. (2007) found that in Malaysian con-
struction industry the critical factors causing delay from contrac-
tor’s side were financial problems, poor site management, delay
in the delivery of materials to the site, and coordination prob-
lem. All this leads to construction mistakes. El-Razek et al.
(2008) identified the causes of delay based on literature review
and finally delivered a list of delay causes which were appropri-
ate to building construction projects in Egypt. They used expert
opinion of five experts to arrive at this list. Kaliba et al. (2009)
found that the major causes of delays in construction projects in
road construction projects in Zambia were delayed payments,
financial deficiencies on the part of the client or the contractor,
contract modifications, economic problems, material procure-
ment problems, changes in design drawings, staffing problems,
unavailability of equipment, poor supervision, construction mis-
takes, poor coordination on site, changes in specifications, labour
disputes and strikes. Fugar and Agyakwah-Baah (2010) named
delay in honouring certificates, underestimation of cost of pro-
ject, poor project management plan, shortage of material and 32
other factors as contributors to delay. Haseeb et al. (2011) cited
37 factors that cause delay and their effects on the success and
completion of project. Haseeb et al. (2011) grouped these factors
into seven categories. The most common factors of delay were
natural disaster, financial and payment problems, improper

planning, poor site management, insufficient experience and
shortage of materials.
Doloi et al. (2012) identified 45 critical factors affecting delay
in construction projects in India. Based on the factor analysis,
they reduced these to seven factors namely lack of commitment,
inefficient site management, poor site coordination, improper
planning, lack of clarity in project scope, lack of communication
and Sub-standard contract. They used RII to rank these factors.
Aziz (2013) did a study on Egyptian construction projects
and used RII approach for ranking the causes of delay. He iden-
tified that delay in approving major changes in scope of work by
consultant was very critical factor that cause delay. Ineffective
project planning and scheduling was identified as a major con-
tractor related factor and design changes by owner or his agent
during construction was identified as a design related factor.
Marzouk and El-Rasas (2014) in Egyptian construction projects
found that projects are suffering delay due to ineffective planning
and scheduling of project, difficulties in financing project by
contractor, variation orders/changes of scope by owner during
construction, poor site management and supervision, type of
project bidding and award (negotiation, lowest bidder), low
productivity level of labours, effects of subsurface conditions (e.g.
soil, high water table, etc.), unqualified workforce, shortage of
construction materials in market, and delays in sub-contractors
work. These factors were identified from owner’s point of view.
The article also talks about the factors from the consultants and
contractors view and used ANOVA to find the difference in the
three views.
Enshassi et al. (2010) did a questionnaire survey in Palestine
and found that strikes, border closures, lack of materials in mar-
kets, shortage of construction materials at site, delay of material
delivery to site, cash-flow problems during construction, and
poor site management were the most significant factors affecting
delay. These factors were ranked based on the importance index.
Khoshgoftar et al. (2010) in a similar study ranked 28 critical
factors affecting delay using RII. The factors that were the most
critical as per RII were financial problems, poor site manage-
ment, improper planning, contract problems, lack of communi-
cation between parties and inadequate experience. Santoso and
Soeng (2016) analysed the delay factors in road construction
projects in Cambodia and found that poor site arrangement,
management and supervision; and poor qualifications of the con-
tractor technical staff and project team and frequent equipment
breakdown were some of the key factors. Aziz and Abdel-Hakam
(2016) studied factors causing delay for road construction proj-
ects in Egypt using a questionnaire survey and RII approach and
found that financial problems, shortages in equipment, construc-
tion materials, skilled operators, inadequate experiences, reworks,
changes or errors in design, delays in design submittal, soil and
underground problems in investigation or management or
expropriation, physical obstructions were some of the reasons for
delay. Kalidindi (2016) identified the factors that cause delay in
the relocation of utilities on 11 road and bridge projects in
India. Slow response from utility agencies, difficulty in identifica-
tion of underground utilities, lack of information on under-
ground utilities and conflict between agencies were some of the
critical factors affecting delay. Initial level factors were identified
through literature review. Later, Kalidindi (2016) used cognitive
mapping approach to find the interrelationships among these
factors. In a recent research, Gebrehiwet and Luo (2017) ranked
52 factors affecting delay using RII and found that in Ethiopian
construction projects, corruption and unavailability of utilities at
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 3
site were the prime factors followed by price increases in materi-
als and late design and design documents to name a few.
Most of the articles reviewed by authors have used survey
based approach to collect data from respondents and used RII as
a major tool to rank the critical factors for delay. In some cases
frequency index and risk weighted analysis were also used to
rank the critical factors. Several researches have extended the
work beyond finding the critical factors for delay and have dis-
cussed about the effects of those factors on the success or failure
of the project. The articles in the past have also categorized the
factors affecting delay on the basis of stakeholders, nature of
work and stage of work. However, except for work done by
Kalidindi (2016), authors did not come across any study that dis-
cussed the interrelationship among critical factors affecting delay.
Researchers in the past, have mostly worked on the assumption
that factors causing delay are mutually exclusive, hence there is
no need to examine the interrelationship amongst them.
However, this assumption may not be valid in all cases, hence,
authors in the present study attempted to examine and explore
the interrelationship amongst factors causing delay.
Research methodology
Authors identified 56 critical factors based on the literature
review and than a panel of experts critically examined each of
these (56) factors causing delay. They reduced these factors caus-
ing delay to 12, identified as the most critical factors. The meth-
odology followed is similar to the one followed by El-Razek et al.
(2008). The panel of experts were interviewed with semi struc-
ture questions. The questions framed for experts were like ‘Do
you think, from your expert opinion, this factor affects delay in
construction projects in India’, ‘is there any other factor which
you would like to add based on your expert opinion’ and ‘are
there any factors that have similar meaning and you would like
to group them as one based on your expert opinion’.
The panel of experts which facilitated the process included
two experts from academia having a teaching and research
experience of more than 20 years in the field of construction
management. Three experts were from construction industry
working with construction companies and handling complex
projects and had a work experience of more than 25 years in
India and abroad. The final list of 12 factors affecting delay is
given below.
1. Lack of defined project management plan
2. Lack of proper contracting strategy
3. Lack of proper construction methodology and sequencing
4. Interdependencies and evaluation of the contractor not
considered in advance
5. Overlook of design review timelines
6. Shortage of material
7. Poor project monitoring and control
8. Poor contract management
9. Extreme weather conditions
10. Conflict between owners and other party
11. Rework due to non-compliance in quality or poor
workmanship
12. Poor site management and supervision
In order to accomplish the second objective of the study i.e.
to find the interrelationship among the critical factors, the
authors used ISM approach. ISM is an expert opinion based
approach, and the same experts who came up with a final list of
12 factors affecting delay helped in creation of ISM framework.
4 A. SHRIVAS AND H. K. SINGLA
Figure 1. Flow diagram for preparing the ISM model.
Source: Self generated.
The reason for choosing ISM approach over others is discussed
in section three.
In ISM approach experts were asked to brainstorm and come
up with a structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM), which was
prepared based on a set of rules. While there is no criteria as to
how many experts should be used for development of SSIM
matrix, studies in the past, have used three to five experts to
come up with SSIM matrix. While developing SSIM, the context-
ual relationship of each variable, the existence of a relation
between any two enablers (i and j) and the associated direction
of the relation is questioned. In this article, four symbols are
used to denote the direction of the relationship between the ena-
blers (i and j). If i affects j but does not get affected by j, the
relationship is symbolized as V, if i does not affect j, but get
affected by j, the relationship is symbolized as A, if both i and j
affect each other, the relationship is symbolized as X and if both
i and j are independent and do not affect each other, the rela-
tionship is symbolized as O. The experts came up with an SSIM
matrix after a brainstorming session. The whole flow chart of
ISM approach is shown in Figure 1.
Use of interpretive structural model (ISM) approach to
study the interrelationships among factors
As noted in the objectives of the study, the article aims to find
the interrelationship among factors affecting delay in construc-
tion projects in India. There are quantitative methods such as
structural equation modelling that can be used to find the inter-
relationship among variables based on the secondary data or
data generated through survey.
Cognitive mapping approach and word frequency analysis can
also be used for the same, which are software based approaches.
Kalantari and Khoshalhan (2017) used hybrid/mixed model
approach by using both fuzzy cognitive maps and interpretive
structural modelling to study the readiness assessment of leagility
supply chain. Fuzzy cognitive maps is a modelling technique,
arising from the combination of fuzzy logic and neural networks
(Groumpos 2015). Fuzzy cognitive maps model is a general
model for the cause-effect phenomenon, which is taken from
cognitive maps model (Kosko 1986). On the other hand, ISM
shows the relationship between the variables of a complex system
(Huang et al. 2005), which can be used to analyze the effect of
one variable over the others. Interpretive structural modelling is
defined as a process that transforms unclear and poorly articu-
lated mental models of systems into visible, well-defined models
useful for various purposes (Sushil 2012). Agarwal et al. (2007)
states that ISM model combines three modelling languages i.e.
discrete words, diagrams and mathematics and therefore is better
in terms of providing graphical representation of complex prob-
lems. The approach is easy to understand for different users in
interdisciplinary groups. It’s a tool to integrate different percep-
tions and provide a system. ISM is seen as a useful tool that
deals with complex issues with logical thinking and then com-
municates the results. It is much more flexible than many con-
ventional quantitative modelling approaches that require
variables to be measured on ratio scales. It offers a qualitative
model by structuring complexity on an issue through building
an agreed structural model (Panackal and Singh 2015). ISM is an
interactive learning process in which a set of dissimilar and dir-
ectly related elements are structured into a comprehensive sys-
tematic model. The model so formed, portrays the structure of a
complex issue or problem, a system or a field of study, in a care-
fully designed pattern implying graphics as well as words. The
basic idea of ISM is to use experts’ practical experience and
knowledge to construct a multilevel structural model (Warfield
1973; Sage 1977). Considering the advantages of ISM, authors
decided to use ISM approach in the study. ISM has been used
along with Matriced’ Impacts Croise’s Multiplication Appliquee
a UN Classement (MICMAC) analysis as a prevailing tool in
most of the complex situations involving modelling of critical
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 5

Table 1. SSIM matrix. Table 2. Initial reachability matrix.

I J! 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I J! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
# #
1 V V O O V V O X A A X V 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
2 O O V O X O O O V O V 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
3 V V V O O V V O O V 3 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1
4 V O V O X O O O V 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
5 O O X O V A V V 5 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
6 O O V O O O V 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
7 A V V O O V 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
8 O O V O V 8 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
9 O V O V 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
10 X O V 10 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
11 X V 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
12 V 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1
Source: Self generated with the help of expert opinion. Source: Self generated.

success factors (CSFs), key variables, enablers, inhibitors or bar- Table 3. Final reachability matrix after transitivity.
riers in different areas (Jena et al. 2017). The ISM has been used
I J! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Driving
to find the mutual relationship among the critical variables for # variables
the implementation of knowledge management in engineering
1 1 1 0 1a 1 1a 1 1 0 1a 1 1 10
industries (Singh et al. 2003); modelling for main barriers of 2 1 1 0 1 1a 1a 1a 1 0 1 1a 1a 10
reverse logistics in automobile industries (Ravi and Shankar 3 1 1a 1 1a 1a 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 10
2005); product design (Lin et al. 2006); supply chain manage- 4 1 1a 0 1 1a 0 1a 1 0 1 1a 1 9
ment (Agarwal et al. 2007; Charan et al. 2008); value chain man- 5 1 1a 0 1a 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1a 8
6 0 0 0 0 1a 1 0 0 0 1 0 1a 4
agement (Mohammed et al. 2008); modelling for key enablers of 7 1a 1a 0 1a 1 1a 1 1a 0 1 1 1a 10
six sigma (Soti et al. 2010); modelling for improvement in service 8 0 1 0 1 1a 0 0 1 0 1 0 1a 6
quality of technical education (Debnath and Shankar 2012); 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1a 3
information security management for Indian organizations’ rela- 10 1a 1a 0 1a 1 1a 1a 1a 0 1 1a 1 10
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1a 0 0 1a 1 1 4
tionship model (Chander et al. 2013) and hierarchical inter-rela-
12 1a 1a 0 1a 1a 1a 1 1a 0 1 1 1 10
tionships among the critical success factors for a smart phone Dependent variable 8 9 1 9 10 8 8 8 1 11 9 12
manufacturing system (Jena et al. 2016). a
Indicate transitivity.
Source: Self generated.

Data analysis using ISM
The experts, based on the set of rules provided to them (dis-
cussed in the research methodology section) to prepare SSIM,
came up to the consensus and gave a SSIM, which is presented
in Table 1.
The interpretations of the identified relationships have been
used as the basis to form the initial reachability matrix. This is
done by replacing V, A, X and O by 1 and 0 in accordance with
the VAXO rules.

If the entry of (i,j) in the SSIM is ‘V’, then enter the value
of the element (i,j) as ‘1’ and subsequently (j,i) as ‘0’ in the
initial reachability matrix

If the entry of (i,j) in the SSIM is ‘A’, then enter the value
of the element (i,j) as ‘0’ and subsequently (j,i) as ‘1’ in the
initial reachability matrix

If the entry of (i,j) in the SSIM is ‘X’, then enter the value
of the element (i,j) as ‘1’ and subsequently (j,i) as ‘1’ in the
initial reachability matrix

Finally, if the entry of (i,j) in SSIM is ‘O’, then enter the
value of the element (i,j) as ‘0’ and subsequently (j,i) as ‘0’
in the initial reachability matrix. (Panackal and Singh 2015)
(Table 2).
Based on the initial reachability matrix, a final reachability
matrix is prepared following the principal of transitivity.
Transitive relationship is one where, if an element ‘a’ is related
to an element ‘b’ and ‘b’ is related to an element ‘c’ then ‘a’ is
also related to ‘c’ (Table 3).
From the final reachability matrix, the reachability and ante-
cedent set for each enabler is obtained (Warfield 1973). The
reachability set consists of the factor itself and other factors, which
it may help achieve, whereas the antecedent set consists of the
factor itself and other factors, which may help achieving it. The
intersection of these two sets named as intersection set (Digalwar
and Giridhar 2015), as shown in Table 4–6. If intersection set is
same as the reachability set, factors are placed at the top level.
The top level factors satisfying the above condition are removed
from the element set for further calculation and the exercise is
repeated iteratively till all the levels are determined. These levels
help in building the diagraph and the ISM model (Sushil 2012).
Tables 4–6, show three iterations that took place in the article,
which means that there are three levels in the model.
From the above Tables 4–6, we can observe that overlook of
design review timelines (5), shortage of material (6), poor con-
tract management (8), conflict between owners and other party
(10), rework due to non-compliance in quality or poor work-
manship (11) and poor site management and supervision (12)
are top level factors; hence these will be placed at the top in the
diagraph. At level two, there are five factors namely lack of
defined project management plan (1), lack of proper contracting
strategy (2), interdependencies and evaluation of the contractor
not considered in advance (4), poor project monitoring and con-
trol (7) and extreme weather conditions (9). At level three, only
one factor i.e. lack of proper construction methodology and
sequencing (3) is placed. The level indicates the importance of
factors. The bottom level factors are most important and root
cause to the real problem.
On the basis of the level positioning obtained and final reach-
ability matrix, a conical matrix (lower triangular matrix) is con-
structed (Table 7). A conical matrix is simply arrangement of the
factors of final reachability matrix in a sequential manner based
on the levels identified. The conical matrix is used to define the
relationship among factors.
6 A. SHRIVAS AND H. K. SINGLA

Table 4. Level identification (Iteration I). The final graphical model is constructed based on the level
Ij Reachability set Antecedent set RS\AS Level identified in Table 4–6 and the relationship among factors is
1 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12 1,2,3,4,5,7,10,12 1,2,4,5,7,10,12 defined based on the conical matrix (Talib et al. 2011) as shown
2 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,10,12 1,2,4,5,7,8,10,12 in Figure 2.
3 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10,11,12 3 3 Three levels have been identified and the Figure 2 is showing
4 1,2,4,5,7,8,10,11,12 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,10,12 1,2,4,5,7,8,10,12
5 1,2,4,5,6,8,10,12 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12 1,2,4,5,6,8,10,12 I
all the three levels where lack of proper construction methodology
6 5,6,10,12 1,3,5,6,7,10,12 5,6,10,12 I and sequencing (3) is placed at the bottom and is affecting lack of
7 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12 1,2,3,4,7,10,11,12 1,2,4,7,10,11,12 defined project management plan (1), lack of proper contracting
8 2,4,5,8,10,12 1,2,4,5,7,8,10,12 2,4,5,8,10,12 I strategy (2), interdependencies and evaluation of the contractor
9 9,11,12 9 9
10 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12 I
not considered in advance (4) and poor project monitoring and
11 7,10,11,12 1,2,3,4,7,9,10,11,12 7,10,11,12 I control. In middle, five factors, lack of defined project manage-
12 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, 10,11,12 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12 I ment plan (1), lack of proper contracting strategy (2); interdepen-
Source: Self generated. dencies and evaluation of the contractor not considered in
advance (4), poor project monitoring and control (7) and extreme
weather conditions (9) are placed. The factors in the middle are
Table 5. Level identification (Iteration II). intermediate as they are affecting others as well as getting affected
Ij Reachability set Antecedent set RS\AS Level by others. Overlook of design review timelines (5), shortage of
1 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12 1,2,3,4,5,7,10,12 1,2,4,5,7,10,12 II material (6), poor contract management (8), conflict between
2 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,10,12 1,2,4,5,7,8,10,12 II owners and other party (10), rework due to non-compliance in
3 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10,11,12 3 3
quality or poor workmanship (11) and poor site management and
4 1,2,4,5,7,8,10,11,12 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,10,12 1,2,4,5,7,8,10,12 II
7 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12 1,2,3,4,7,10,11,12 1,2,4,7,10,11,12 II supervision (12) are the factors placed at the top, as these factors
9 9,11,12 9 9 II are affected by others but do not influence others.
Source: Self generated. ISM fuzzy MICMAC analysis is performed to confirm the
findings of proposed ISM model. The MICMAC analysis stands
for Cross-Impact Matrix Multiplication Applied to the
Table 6. Level identification (Iteration III).
Classification analysis. The MICMAC analysis works on the
principle of multiplication properties of matrices (Kannan et al.
Ij Reachability set Antecedent set RS\AS Level
2009). The purpose of performing MICMAC analysis is to ana-
3 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10,11,12 3 3 III
lyze the dependence and driving power of inhibitors (Mandal
Source: Self generated. and Deshmukh 1994; Wakchaure and Jha 2011). It is basically
performed for identifying inhibitors, which are responsible to
Table 7. Conical matrix.
drive the whole system. It is a technique to represent inhibitors
graphically into four clusters (Jena et al. 2017) namely autono-
Factors 5 6 8 10 11 12 1 2 4 7 9 3
mous, dependent, linkage and driving cluster.
5 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 8 highlights each variable with its driving and depend-
6 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ent power.
10 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Based on Table 8, a MICMAC matrix is prepared. The matrix
11 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 is divided into four clusters. The factors placed in cluster one are
12 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 called autonomous variables. They indicate a weak driving power
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 and subsequently a weak dependence power. These variables are
4 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 disconnected from the system. They are not linked to other fac-
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 tors and are independent in the system (Jena et al. 2017). An
9 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 extreme weather condition (9) is the only factor that is placed in
3 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
this cluster. In cluster two, those factors are placed that have
Source: Self generated. strong dependence power. These factors are influenced by other
factors but do not influence others (Jena et al. 2017). Shortage of

Figure 2. Model depicting relation among variables based on ISM.

Source: Self generated.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 7

Table 8. Driving and dependent variables for MICMAC analysis.

Factors Dependent Variables Driving Variables
Lack of defined project management plan (1) 8 10
Lack of proper contracting strategy (2) 9 10
Lack of proper construction methodology and sequencing (3) 1 10
Inter dependencies and evaluation of the contractor not considered in advance (4) 9 9
Overlook of Design review timelines (5) 10 8
Shortage of material (6) 8 4
Poor project monitoring and control (7) 8 10
Poor contract management (8) 8 6
Extreme weather conditions (9) 1 3
Conflict between owners and other party (10) 11 10
Rework due to non-compliance in quality or poor workmanship (11) 9 4
Poor site management and supervision (12) 12 10
Source: Self generated.

Figure 3. Graph of MICMAC Analysis.

Source: Self generated.

material (6), poor contract management (8) and rework due to
non-compliance in quality or poor workmanship (11), are the fac-
tors that are placed in this cluster, meaning they have strong
dependent power. The factors that are placed in cluster three are
known to have a strong driving and strong dependence power.
The factors are unstable; any action on these variables will have
an effect on others and a feedback effect on themselves. They are
the connecting link among factors (Jena et al. 2017). Lack of
defined project management plan (1), lack of proper contracting
strategy (2), interdependencies and evaluation of the contractor
not considered in advance (4), overlook of design review timelines
(5), poor project monitoring and control (7), conflict between
owners and other party (10) and poor site management and
supervision (12) are the factors placed in this cluster. Finally the
factors that have a strong driving power are placed in forth quad-
rant. They drive other factors but are not influenced by others.
Lack of proper construction methodology and sequencing (3) is
the only factor placed in this quadrant.
Conclusion and discussion
The article initially identified 12 most critical factors affecting
delay of construction projects in India based on literature review
and expert opinion. Later based on the expert opinion, an ISM
model is developed along with MICMAC matrix. Looking at
MICMAC matrix and ISM model (Figure 2 and 3) collectively,
authors found mixed results. According to ISM model, lack of
proper construction methodology and sequencing (3) is placed at
the bottom level, which implies that this factor has influence
over others but does not get affecting by others. The same is
confirmed through MICMAC analysis as this factor is placed in
cluster four, which indicate the same. This factor can be identi-
fied as the root cause of many problems and any change in this
can lead to a cascading effect. Lack of proper construction meth-
odology and sequencing is influencing the lack of defined project
management plan (1), lack of proper contracting strategy (2),
interdependencies and evaluation of the contractor not
8 A. SHRIVAS AND H. K. SINGLA
considered in advance (4) and poor project monitoring and con-
trol (7) but it does not have a relationship with extreme weather
conditions (9) as shown in Figure 2. There are also interrelation-
ship among the level two factors as shown in Figure 2. These
findings also confirm to MICMAC analysis as lack of defined
project management plan (1), lack of proper contracting strategy
(2), interdependencies and evaluation of the contractor not con-
sidered in advance (4) and poor project monitoring and control
(7) are placed in cluster three indicating they are linkage varia-
bles. Lack of proper construction methodology and sequencing
does not affect extreme weather conditions as extreme weather
conditions (9) is an autonomous factor and almost disconnected
to the entire system. Overlook of design review timelines (5),
shortage of material (6), poor contract management (8), conflict
between owners and other party (10), rework due to non-compli-
ance in quality or poor workmanship (11) and poor site manage-
ment and supervision (12) are placed at the top of ISM model
indicating that these factors get influenced level two and level
three factors but does not influence over others. These findings
are in little contradiction to MICMAC findings as according to
MICMAC only shortage of material (6), poor contract manage-
ment (8) and rework due to non-compliance in quality or poor
workmanship (11) are the factors that are dependent whereas
overlook of design review timelines (5), conflict between owners
and other party (10) and poor site management and supervision
(12) are linkage variables.
The article is an attempt to provide an insight to academia
and practitioners about the interrelationship among the critical
factors affecting delay in construction projects. A conceptual
framework is developed that helps understand the inter-relation-
ships among the critical factors affecting delay in construction
projects. This article can serve as a base to the project managers
working on construction projects, to understand the inter-
relationships and interdependencies among the critical factors
for delay. The proposed ISM can be useful in understanding the
critical factors as well as the push pull effect of the factors on
each other. This article can serve as a base to researchers for fur-
ther research in the field to empirically test the proposed model.
The ISM method has many advantages, but it also has a few
limitations. The major limitation of ISM is that the relationship
among the variables totally depends upon the expert’s knowledge
and their experience within their industries. Therefore, prejudice
of the one who is judging the variables might manipulate the
final result. (Dewangan et al. 2015).
Despite the inherent limitation of ISM, the study contributes
significantly to the body of knowledge by suggesting a model
that highlights the interrelationship among those factors affecting
delay. The proposed model can be put to test and modified in
the future studies.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
References
Agarwal A, Shankar R, Tiwari MK. 2007. Modeling agility of supply chain.
Indus Market Manage. 36(4):443–457.
Aibinu AA, Odeyinka HA. 2006. Construction delays and their causative fac-
tors in Nigeria. J Constr Eng Manage. 132(7):667–677.
Assaf SA, Al-Hejji S. 2006. Causes of delay in large construction projects. Int
J Project Manage. 24(4):349–357.
Assaf SA, Al-Khalil M, Al-Hazmi M. 1995. Causes of delays in large building
construction projects. ASCE J Manage Eng. 11(2):45–50.
Aziz R. 2013. Ranking of delay factors in construction projects after Egyptian
revolution. Alex Eng J. 52(3):387–406.
Aziz RF, Abdel-Hakam AA. 2016. Exploring delay causes of road construc-
tion projects in Egypt. Alex Eng J. 55(2):1515–1539.
Bordoli DW, Baldwin AN. 1998. A methodology for assessing construction
project delays. J Constr Manage Eng. 16(3):327–337.
Chander M, Jain SK, Shankar R. 2013. Modeling of information security
management parameters in Indian organizations using ISM and
MICMAC approach. J Model Manage. 8(2):171–189.
Charan P, Shankar R, Baisya RK. 2008. Analysis of interactions among the
variables of supply chain performance measurement system implementa-
tion. Bus Process Manage J. 14(4):512–529.
Debnath RM, Shankar R. 2012. Improving service quality in technical educa-
tion: use of interpretive structural modeling. Q Assur Edu. 20(4):387–407.
Dewangan DD, Agrawal R, Sharma V. 2015. Enablers for competitiveness of
Indian manufacturing sector: an ISM-fuzzy MICMAC analysis. Proc
Social Behav Sci. 189:416–432..
Digalwar AK, Giridhar G. 2015. Interpretive structural modeling approach
for development of electric vehicle market in India. Proc CIRP. 26:40–45..
Doloi H, Sawhney A, Iyer KC, Rentala S. 2012. Analysing factors affecting
delays in Indian construction projects. Int J Project Manage. 30(4):479–489.
El-Razek AME, Bassioni HA, Mobarak AM. 2008. Causes of delay in building
construction projects in Egypt. J Constr Eng Manage. 134:831–841.
Enshassi A, Kumaraswamy M, Al-Najjar J. 2010. Significant Factors Causing
Time and Cost Overruns in Construction Projects in the Gaza Strip: con-
tractors’ perspective. Int J Constr Manage. 10(1):35–60.
Ernawati S, Mohd A, Razali A, Azizah K. 2007. The significant factors caus-
ing delay of building construction projects in Malaysia. Eng Constr
Architect Manage. 14(2):192–206.
Frimpong Y, Oluwoye J, Crawford L. 2003. Causes of delay and cost over-
runs in construction of groundwater projects in a developing countries:
Ghana as a case study. Int J Project Manage. 21(5):321–326.
Fugar FD, Agyakwah-Baah AB. 2010. Delays in building construction proj-
ects in Ghana. AJCEB. 10(1/2):103–116.
Gebrehiwet T, Luo H. 2017. Analysis of delay impact on construction project
based on rii and correlation coefficient: empirical study. Proc Eng. 196:
366–374.
Groumpos PP. 2015. Modelling business and management systems using
fuzzy cognitive maps: a critical overview. IFAC-Papers on Line. 48(24):
207–212.
Haseeb M, Lu X, Bibi A, Dyian M, Rabbani W. 2011. Problems of projects
and effects of delays in the construction industry of Pakistan. Aust J Bus
Manage Res. 1(5):41–50.
Huang J, Tzeng G, Ong C. 2005. Multidimensional data in multidimensional
scaling using the analytic network process. Pattern Recog Lett. 26(6):
755–767.
Iyer KC, Jha KN. 2005. Factors affecting cost performance: evidence from
Indian construction projects. Int J Project Manage. 23(4):283–295.
Jena J, Fulzele V, Gupta R, Sherwani F, Shankar R, Sidharth S. 2016. A TISM
modeling of critical success factors of smartphone manufacturing ecosys-
tem in India. J Adv Manage Res. 13(2):203–224..
Jena J, Sidharth S, Thakur LS, Pathak DK, Pandey VC. 2017. Total
Interpretive Structural Modeling (TISM): approach and application. J Adv
Manage Res. 14(2):162–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JAMR-10-2016-
0087.
Jha NK, Devaya MN. 2008. Modelling the risks faced by Indian construction
companies assessing international projects. Constr Man Econ. 26(4):
337–348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446190801953281.
Kalantari T, Khoshalhan F. 2017. Readiness assessment of leagility supply
chain based on fuzzy cognitive maps & interpretive structural modeling: a
case study. J Bus Indus Market. 33(4):442–456..
Kaliba C, Muya M, Mumba K. 2009. Cost escalation and schedule delays in
road construction projects in Zambia. Int J Project Manage. 27(5):
522–531.
Kalidindi AVSN. 2016. Interrelationships of factors causing delays in the
relocation of utilities. Eng Constr Architect Manage. 23(3):349–368.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-10-2014-0127.
Kannan G, Pokharel S, Kumar SP. 2009. A hybrid approach using ISM and
fuzzy TOPSIS for the selection of reverse logistics provider. Resour
Conserv Recycl. 54(1):28–36.
Khoshgoftar M, Bakar AHA, Osman O. 2010. Causes of delays in Iranian
construction projects. Int J Constr Manage. 10(2):53–69.
Kosko B. 1986. Fuzzy cognitive maps. Int J Man-Mach Stud. 24(1):65–74.
Kumaraswamy M, Chan D. 1998. Contributors to construction delay. Constr
Manage Econ. 16(1):17–29.
Lin MC, Wang CC, Chen TC. 2006. A strategy for managing customer-ori-
ented product design. Concurrent Eng. 14(3):231–244.

Lo TY, Fung IWH, Tung KCF. 2006. Construction delays in Hong Kong civil
engineering projects. J Constr Eng Manage. 132(6):636–649.
Mahamid I, Bruland A, Dmaidi N. 2012. Causes of delay in road construc-
tion projects. J Manage Eng. 28(3):300–310.
Mandal A, Deshmukh SG. 1994. Vendor selection using interpretive struc-
tural modeling (ISM). Int J Op Prod Manage. 14(6):52–59.
Mansfield N, Ugwu O, Doran T. 1994. Causes of delay and cost overruns in
Nigerian construction projects. Int J Project Manage. 12(4):254–260.
Marzouk MM, El-Rasas TI. 2014. Analyzing delay causes in Egyptian con-
struction Projects. J Adv Res. 5(1):49–55.
Mohammed IR, Shankar R, Banwet DK. 2008. Creating Flex-lean-agile value
chain by outsourcing: an ISM based interventional roadmap. Bus Process
Manage J. 14(3):338–389.
Panackal N, Singh A. 2015. Using interpretive structural modeling to deter-
mine the relation between youth and sustainable rural development.
IBMRD’s J Manage Res. 4:58–74.
Pickavance K. 2000. Delay and disruption in construction contracts. 2nd ed.
London (UK): Sweet & Maxwell.
Ravi V, Shankar R. 2005. Analysis of interactions among the barriers of
reverse logistics. Technol Forecast Social Change. 72(8):1011–1029.
Sage A. 1977. Interpretive structural modelling: methodology for large scale
systems. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sambasivan M, Soon YW. 2007. Causes and effects of delays in Malaysian
construction industry. Int J Project Manage. 25(5):517–526.
Santoso DS, Soeng S. 2016. Analyzing delays of road construction projects in
Cambodia: causes and effects. J Manage Eng. 32(6):05016020.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 9
Satyanarayana KN, Iyer KC. 1996. Evaluation of delays in Indian construc-
tion contracts. J Inst Eng (India). 77:14–22.
Semple C, Hartman FT, Jergeas G. 1994. Construction claims and disputes:
causes and cost/time overruns. J Constr Eng Manage. 120(4):785–795.
Singh MD, Shankar R, Narain R, Agarwal A. 2003. An interpretive structural
modeling of knowledge management in engineering industries. J Adv
Manage Res. 1(1):28–40.
Soti A, Shankar R, Kaushal OP. 2010. Modeling the enablers of Six Sigma
using interpreting structural modeling. J Model Manage. 5(2):124–141.
Sushil. 2012. Interpreting the interpretive structural model. Global J Flexi
Syst Manage. 13(2):87–106.
Talib F, Rahman Z, Qureshi MN. 2011. Analysis of interaction among the
barriers to total quality management implementation using interpretive
structural modeling approach. Benchmarking. 18(4):563–587..
Wakchaure SS, Jha KN. 2011. Modeling of post-construction failure factors
of bridges. J Adv Manage Res. 8(2):246–262.
Warfield JN. 1973. An assault on complexity. Battelle monograph no 3.
Columbus (OH): Battelle Memorial Institute.
Yates J, Epstein A. 2006. Avoiding and minimizing construction delay claim
disputes in relational contracting. J Prof Issues Eng Educ Pract. 132(2):
168–179.
Zack JG. 2003. Schedule delay analysis; is there agreement? In: Proceedings,
PMI-CPM College of Performance Spring Conference, Project
Management Institute—College of Performance Management, New
Orleans, May 7–9. Available from: http://www.pmicpm.org/public/news_
events/2003_spring_conf/index.html_.