Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology

A quantitative assessment of the cost and time impact of variation orders on

construction projects
A.A. Oladapo,
Article information:
To cite this document:
A.A. Oladapo, (2007) "A quantitative assessment of the cost and time impact of variation orders on
construction projects", Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 5 Issue: 1, pp.35-48, https://
doi.org/10.1108/17260530710746597
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/17260530710746597
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:06 10 July 2017 (PT)

Downloaded on: 10 July 2017, At: 10:06 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 42 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2489 times since 2007*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2005),"The potential effects of variation orders on institutional building projects", Facilities,
Vol. 23 Iss 11/12 pp. 496-510 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/02632770510618462">https://
doi.org/10.1108/02632770510618462</a>
(2009),"Delays and cost overruns in the construction projects in the Gaza Strip", Journal of
Financial Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 14 Iss 2 pp. 126-151 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/13664380910977592">https://doi.org/10.1108/13664380910977592</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:614218 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1726-0531.htm

Assessment of
A quantitative assessment of the the cost and time
cost and time impact of variation impact
orders on construction projects
35
A.A. Oladapo
School of Civil Engineering, Surveying and Construction,
University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa

Abstract
Purpose – Variation orders are a common occurrence in construction projects and their impacts have
been studied by various authors. However, the contribution of project variations to construction cost
and time overruns is yet to be established. The purpose of this study is to assess the significance of
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:06 10 July 2017 (PT)

variations as a cause of cost and time overruns.

Design/methodology/approach – Using a questionnaire survey, responses were obtained from
50 project participants on the causes and effects of project variations. Cost and time data were also
collected on 30 completed building projects. The analysis used importance indices and F- and t-tests.
The results indicated that variations had a significant effect and accounted for about 79 and 68 per cent
of the cost and time overruns, respectively, for the projects studied.
Findings – The results indicated that variations had a significant effect on project cost and time
overruns and accounted for about 79 and 68 per cent of the cost and time overruns, respectively, for the
projects studied. Project type and size were found to have no significant effect on the contribution of
variations to cost and time overruns. The results also showed that changes in specifications and scope,
initiated mostly by project owners and their consultants, were the most prevalent sources of variation.
Originality/value – The results of this study indicates the cost and time significance of project. This
will enable project owners, consultants, contractors and other stakeholders to better understand and
appreciate the real impact of variations on project performance.
Keywords Costs, Lead times, Construction industry, Nigeria
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Construction is complex and uncertain in nature, and unlike manufacturing the design
and production functions in the construction process are conventionally separated.
Traditionally, the design and construction of a building are two separate functions
performed by different professionals or organizations working independently.
According to Kwakye (1997), this compartmentalisation of construction into separate
design and production functions leads to designs without concern for buildability or
production economies and the perpetuation of costly mistakes from one project to
another (Kwakye, 1997). This organisational characteristic of the construction industry
makes construction projects prone to variation or change during the construction phase.
Variation has become so prevalent in construction that it is hardly possible to
complete a project without changes to the plans or the construction process itself Journal of Engineering, Design and
(Ssegawa et al., 2002). Thus, according to Revay (2002), there will be changes to scope, Technology
Vol. 5 No. 1, 2007
time, cost and/or quality on most, if not all, construction projects. Various studies have pp. 35-48
identified variation orders among the causes of project cost and time overruns, which q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1726-0531
(according to Sterman, 1992), are endemic problems in international construction. DOI 10.1108/17260530710746597
 JEDT However, the existing literature gives little indication of their contributions to project
5,1 cost and time overruns. This study measures the proportion of total project cost and time
overruns directly attributable to variation orders using data on 30 completed projects.
The study also assesses the causes of variations and evaluates the contribution of the
project participants to the occurrence of variations in building projects.

36 The Nigerian construction industry

The Nigerian construction industry is made up of an organised formal sector and an
unorganised informal sector. The formal sector comprises foreign and indigenous
companies, which are classified into small, medium and large-scale according to their
level of capitalisation and annual turnover. The few large firms (mostly foreign), which
constitute about 5 per cent of the total number of contractors in the formal sector,
control about 95 per cent of the construction market, giving the small firms just about
5 per cent share of the market.
The construction industry was the dominant contributor to Nigeria’s GDP from the
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:06 10 July 2017 (PT)

immediate post-independence years in the 1960s to the 1980s, accounting for about 70
per cent of the GDP (Planning Committee on the National Construction Policy, 1989).
This made the industry very strategic to the nation’s development efforts.
Unfortunately, however, the industry has been bedevilled by a combination of low
demand and consistent low productivity and poor performance since the decline of the
national economy started at the end of the 1980s (Aniekwu, 1995; Okuwoga, 1998;
Adeyemi et al., 2005). This has reduced its contribution to the national economy to a
mere 1 per cent of the GDP in 2002 (AfDB/OECD, 2004) and manifested in, among other
effects, very high rates of cost and time overruns in the order of 140 per cent of initial
project cost and 81 per cent of original contract period, respectively, for public sector
projects (Oma-Williams, 1991).

The nature, scope and impact of variations

Variation, according to Baxendale and Schofield (1986), is any change to the basis on
which the contract was signed. Variation involves not only changes to the work or
matters relating to the work in accordance with the conditions of the contract but also
changes to the working conditions themselves (Ssegawa et al., 2002). Standard forms of
contract provide that no variation shall vitiate a contract since, according to Turner
(1984), variations are changes within a contract and not changes of the contract.
The nature of variations is usually defined by a variation clause in the contract.
However, what constitutes a variation in a contract is not only found in one clause but
in a range of clauses (Ssegawa et al., 2002). In the opinion of Ramus and Birchall (1998),
the definition of variation in clause 13.1 of the JCT Form of contract indicates the wide
scope for the exercise of the architect’s power to vary the works. According to them,
variations may arise in any of the following situations, among others:
.
when the architect needs or wishes to vary the design or the specification;
.
when a discrepancy is discovered between any two or more of the contract
documents;
.
when a discrepancy is discovered between any statutory requirement and any of
the contract documents; and
.
when an error in or omission from the contract bills is discovered.
 A variation order is a written instruction by the architect requiring the contractor to Assessment of
alter the works in any of these situations. the cost and time
Variations result from the necessity to modify aspects of the construction project in
reaction to circumstances that develop during the construction process. This may be impact
due to an unexpected technological constraint in the construction phase, which will
require a design change (Weisfeld and Ciccozzi, 1999). The changes may be small, well
managed, and have little effect on the whole construction project. On the other hand, 37
changes may be large, poorly managed, and have tremendous negative impacts on
construction project performance in terms of time and cost (Hanna et al., 2002a, b).
A review of the literature indicates that all the project participants cause variations
(Ssegawa et al., 2002). They initiate variations in response to changes in the financial,
aesthetic, statutory and technological requirements as well as the weather, geological,
geotechnical and other conditions (Hibberd, 1986; Weisfeld and Ciccozzi, 1999). Arain
(2005) has classified the causes of variations into five categories, namely owner-related
variations (ORV), consultant-related variations (CRV), contractor-related variations
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:06 10 July 2017 (PT)

(CTRV), other variations (OV) and combinations of causes (CC). In a study of

institutional buildings in Singapore, Arain (2005) identified change of plans or scope by
owner, change in specifications by owner, non-compliance of design with government
regulations, design discrepancies (inadequate design), and change in design by
consultant as the five most important and common root causes of variation.
In the USA, an audit report of state projects in the State of Washington identified
consultant-related variations resulting from inadequate field investigation, unclear
specifications, plan error, and design change or mistakes by the consulting engineer as
responsible for avoidable variation orders costing $35.4 million (Cambridge Systematics,
Inc., 1998). The common causes of variations in the Nigerian construction industry have
also been identified by Gbeleyi (2002) as change in specifications, changes in scope,
adjustment of PC and provisional sums, errors/omissions in contract documents,
discrepancies in contract documents, changes in government policies/legislation, and
natural occurrence (changes in weather and geological conditions, etc.).
The negative impacts of variation orders on construction projects have been
reported by several authors. Variation orders adversely affect labour productivity
(Thomas and Napolitan, 1995; Hanna et al., 1999, 2002a, b; Hanna and Gunduz, 2004).
They can frequently cause significant disruptions to a construction project, which may
decrease the labour productivity of the contractor and extend the project duration
(Hanna et al., 2002a, b; Tse and Love, 2003). This results not only in material wastage
(Motete et al., 2003) but also marginalises project quality (Smallwood, 2000) Variations
are the most frequent cause of claims (Zaneldin, 2005), which result in cost overruns
(Sutrisna et al., 2003). They are also one of the commonest causes of delays (Odeyinka
and Yusif, 1997) and disputes in construction contracts (Sutrisna et al., 2003; Chan and
Suen, 2005). A study by Ayininuola and Olalusi (2004) has also revealed that frequent
variation of works by building owners is one of the major causes of the high incidence
of building failures in Nigeria. Perhaps, the most undesirable impact of variation is
that, according to Transparency International (2005), it has become a source of bribery
and corruption in international construction.
The sum total of these impacts of variation orders is that they can cause
substantial adjustment to both the contract duration and cost, i.e. time and cost
overruns (Ibbs, 1997; Ibbs et al., 1998; Morris, 1998; von Branconi and Loch, 2004).
 JEDT Design variations, according to Chan and Kumaraswamy (1996), always lead to poor
5,1 time performance whether they are owner-initiated or consultant-initiated. In fact,
it has been known for a considerable amount of time that owner-initiated variations
represent a primary source of time and cost overruns (Love and Edwards, 2004).

Data and methodology

38 Two sets of questionnaires (A and B) were administered in 2004 to collect data.
Questionnaire A sought respondents’ opinions on the causes of variation and the
contributions of project owners, contractors, consultants and other stakeholders to
the occurrence of variations. The questionnaire used a four-point Likert scale of 1-4 with,
for example, 1 ¼ Not significant, 2 ¼ Quite significant, 3 ¼ Significant and 4 ¼ Very
significant. Totally, 100 copies of Questionnaire A were distributed to managers and senior
managers in 30 contracting, 40 consulting and 30 client organisations. Table I shows the
distribution and response rates for Questionnaire A. Out of the 53 returned questionnaires,
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:06 10 July 2017 (PT)

only 50 were found to be properly answered and suitable for analysis. This represents a
response rate of 50 per cent which, according to by Elhag and Boussabaine (1999) and
Idrus and Newman (2002), is good enough for research of this nature.
A total of 50 copies of Questionnaire B were distributed to managers and senior
mangers in quantity surveying firms to collect details of completed building projects in
terms of original contract sum, final cost, cost overrun, approximate percentage of cost
overrun attributed to variation orders, original contract period, final completion time,
time overrun and approximate percentage of the time overrun attributed to variation
orders. Data were collected only on projects which suffered both cost and time
overruns. The respondents provided all the details requested for 30 projects.
Information on respondents’ profile is summarised in Tables II and III. These tables
show that 90 per cent of the respondents have the minimum qualifications (HND
and above) required for professional registration in most disciplines in Nigeria while
42 per cent of them have over ten years professional experience. The average number
of years of experience of the respondents is 11 years while 42 per cent have the

Type of organisation Number distributed Number returned Response rate (per cent)

Table I. Contracting 30 11 36.7

Distribution of Consulting 40 34 85.0
Questionnaire A and Client 30 8 26.7
responses Total 100 53 53.0

Respondent’s academic qualification Frequency Per cent Cumulative per cent

Ordinary national diploma (OND) 5 10 10.00

Higher national diploma (HND) 26 52 62.00
BSc 16 32 94.00
Table II. MSc 2 4 98.00
Respondents’ academic PhD 1 2 100.00
qualifications Total 50 100
 requisite professional qualifications. This profile indicates that the respondents could Assessment of
be relied upon for information for this study. the cost and time
The data from Questionnaire A were analysed using the importance index.
The formula for the importance index is given as follows (El-Haram and Horner, 2002; impact
Zaneldin, 2005):
!
X 4
100 39
Importance index ¼ wi £ f i £ ;
i¼1
4n

where wi is weight given to ith rating; i ¼ 1, 2, 3, or 4, fi ¼ response frequency of ith

rating; and n is total number of responses.
The data from Questionnaire B on 13 small (up to ¼ N 5 million), seven medium
¼ 5-10 million) and ten large (over ¼
(N N 10 million) projects made up of 13 public and 17
private sector projects were used to calculate the mean percentage contribution of
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:06 10 July 2017 (PT)

variation orders to cost and time overruns. In addition, using the F-statistic and the
student t-test, the following null hypotheses were tested for building projects:
.
The project type (public or private) has no significant effect on the contribution
of variation orders to project cost and time overruns.
.
The project size (small, medium or large) has no significant effect on the
contribution of variation orders to project cost and time overruns.
.
Variation orders have no significant effect on cost overrun.
.
Variation orders have no significant effect on time overrun.

Analysis and discussion of results

Data were analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) to rank
variables based on their importance indices. F-statistics and t-statistics were used to
test the hypotheses.

Causes of variation in building projects

Respondents were asked to rank 7 root causes of variation identified from the literature
(Gbeleyi, 2002) to be relevant to the Nigerian construction industry. The ranking
(Likert) scale ranged from 1 ¼ uncommon to 4 ¼ very common. The results in
Table IV show that change in specifications (usually at the instance of building
owners) is the most common reason for the variation of works, whilst the effect of
natural occurrences, usually beyond the control of the stakeholders, is the least
common.

Years of experience Frequency Per cent Cumulative per cent

Up to 5 years 3 6 6.00
6-10 years 23 46 52.00
11-15 years 17 34 86.00
16-20 years 5 10 96.00 Table III.
Over 20 years 2 4 100.00 Respondents’ years of
Total 50 100 professional experience
 JEDT
Response frequencies Importance index
5,1 Factors 1 2 3 4 (per cent) Rank

Change in specifications 2 13 35 91.5 1

Natural occurrence (changes in weather
and geological conditions, etc.) 14 21 15 50.5 7
40 Changes in scope 6 25 19 81.5 2
Changes in government
policies/legislation 13 17 19 1 54.0 6
Adjustment of PC and provisional sums 2 7 21 20 79.5 3
Table IV. Errors/omissions in contract documents 11 24 15 77.0 4
Causes of variation Discrepancies in contract documents 4 10 16 20 76.0 5

Stakeholders contributions to variations

Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:06 10 July 2017 (PT)

On a scale of 1 ¼ not significant, 2 ¼ quite significant, 3 ¼ significant and

4 ¼ very significant, the respondents rated the contributions of the major
stakeholders in the building industry – building owners, consultants, contractors
and statutory/regulatory agencies – to the occurrence of variations. They also rated
the reasons why owners initiate variations. Table V shows that building owners and
consultants are the major initiators of variation. Contractors hardly initiate variations
as they are often at the receiving end of variation instructions from building owners
and their consultants.
These results are similar to those of earlier studies in Botswana (Ssegawa et al.,
2002) and Singapore (Arain, 2005) which also indicated that building owners and
consultants are the main initiators of variations in building projects.

Response frequencies
Stakeholders 1 2 3 4 Importance index (per cent) Rank

Building owner 17 23 10 71.5 1

Consultants 9 14 17 10 64.0 2
Table V. Contractors 30 10 7 3 41.5 4
Sources of variation Statutory/regulatory agencies 15 18 15 2 52.0 3

Response
frequencies
Reason 1 2 3 4 Importance index (per cent) Rank

Technological changes 15 19 11 53.0 4

Changes in owners’ income/financial ability 4 19 5 86.5 1
Table VI. Changes in owners’ interests/requirements 2 12 20 27 75.0 2
Reasons for Improper preliminary advice by consultants 7 18 15 16 64.0 3
owner-related variation Environmental influence (weather, geology, etc.) 26 16 8 10 41.0 5
 A further analysis of owner-caused variation in Table VI shows that “changes in Assessment of
owners’ income and financial ability” is the most and “environmental influence” the the cost and time
least important reason why owners initiate variation orders.
Table VII also shows that “design errors” by consultants, “insufficient time for impact
preparation of contract documents” allowed by owners and “improper briefing
by clients” are the three most important causes of consultant-related variation
orders. 41

The cost and time impacts of variations

As earlier stated, evidence abounds in the literature that variations contribute to
project time and cost overruns. To determine the significance of this contribution,
relevant data were collected on 30 projects completed between 1990 and 2001 for which
the respondents could estimate the impact of variation orders on project cost and time.
All the projects suffered delays (time overrun) ranging between 11.1 per cent and
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:06 10 July 2017 (PT)

800 per cent of the contract period, and cost overruns ranging between 1.52
and 358.7 per cent of the contract sum (Table VIII).
The total cost overrun comprised loss and expenses claims (Clause 26 of JCT’98),
fluctuation claims (Clauses 38 and 39 of JCT’98) and variation claims (Clause 13 of
JCT’98). The time overrun, on the other hand resulted, from delays by the
contractors (Clause 24 of JCT’98) and extension of time by the owners (Clause 25 of
JCT’98) necessitated by variation orders and other causes. Using the SPSS, the
impact of variation orders by project size and type as well as the overall impact of
variation orders on project cost and time overruns were analysed employing
F-statistics and t-statistics. Table IX shows that the impact of variations on cost
overrun was greatest in small projects and least in medium projects while for time
overrun the impact of variations was greatest in medium projects and least in large
projects.
Table X shows that variations had a greater impact on cost overrun in public
projects than in private projects. On the other hand, variation had a greater impact on
total time overrun in private projects than in public projects. Viewed in the light of the
assertion by Ogunlana et al. (1996) that variations tend to occur more often in private
projects than in public projects, these results seem to suggest that the frequency of
variations do not necessarily determine their cost and time impacts on a project.

Response
frequencies Importance index
Reason 1 2 3 4 (per cent) Rank

Design errors 2 6 18 24 82.0 1

Improper briefing by client 10 7 19 14 68.5 3
Lack of coordination among consultants 13 20 11 6 55.0 4
Designs not conforming to statutory Table VII.
regulations/tests 16 18 12 4 52.0 5 Reasons for
Insufficient time for preparation of contract consultant-related
documents 2 8 18 22 80.0 2 variation
 Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:06 10 July 2017 (PT)

5,1

42
JEDT

Table VIII.

selected projects
Time and cost details of
Approx. Approx. Approx. Approx.
Contract percentage of cost percentage of cost Initial contract Final percentage of time percentage of time
Project Year of sum Final cost overrun due to overrun due to period completion overrun due to overrun due to
type execution (N
¼ million)a (N
¼ million) VOs other causes (months) time (months) VOs other causes

Public 1992 10.90 50.00 66 34 20 180 58 42

Private 1994 5.00 5.58 70 30 18 20 100 0
Private 1991 1.89 2.00 81 19 12 14 50 50
Public 1992 0.39 1.55 62 38 11 15 50 50
Private 1997 24.00 40.00 80 20 18 71 42 58
Public 1998 1.46 2.31 100 0 5 27 80 20
Private 1992 5.99 6.75 70 30 12 16 75 25
Private 1990 45.00 90.00 70 30 10 19 80 20
Public 1996 236.00 558.00 80 20 24 37 70 30
Public 1995 66.00 132.20 67 33 15 24 65 35
Private 1991 17.15 32.33 50 50 40 60 60 40
Public 1994 6.00 10.00 78 22 26 32 100 0
Private 1990 7.50 14.05 80 20 18 20 100 0
Private 2000 0.32 0.34 100 0 5 6 100 0
Private 2001 5.00 5.13 100 0 6 7 100 0
Private 2000 18.20 33.16 70 30 9 16 40 60
Public 1998 2.50 7.00 85 15 16 30 65 35
Private 1999 0.45 0.95 100 0 6 12 70 30
Private 1999 9.50 11.20 58 42 22 28 30 70
Public 1995 72.00 95.92 39 61 9 11 100 0
Public 1996 13.50 14.30 100 0 3 4 100 0
Public 1996 27.88 28.32 100 0 25 45 55 45
Private 1999 4.88 5.42 70 30 16 20 75 25
Private 2000 7.80 12.60 71 29 9 14 40 60
Public 1999 14.30 14.80 100 0 15 21 30 70
Private 1994 3.12 3.85 40 60 4 5 100 0
Private 1996 5.89 5.98 100. 0 14 18 100 0
Public 1995 0.70 1.10 100 0 9 18 45 55
Public 1991 0.64 0.87 75 25 12 27 40 60
Private 1997 2.60 3.72 74 26 16 19 30 70
¼ 130.00 ¼ US$1.00; N
Notes: aN ¼ naira
 Overall, variation accounted for 78.77 per cent of the total cost overrun and Assessment of
68.33 per cent of the total time overrun (Tables IX and X). the cost and time
The F statistics and the p values ( p . 0.05) also indicate that project type (public or
private) and size (small, medium or large) had no significant effect on the impact
contribution of variation orders to project cost and time overruns. Thus, the null
hypotheses that project type and size had no significant effect on the contribution of
variation orders to project cost and time overruns were accepted. To test the 43
hypothesis that variation orders have no significant effect on cost overrun,
the t value was 97.319 with p ¼ 0.000 at the 5 per cent level of significance. For the
hypothesis that variation orders have no significant effect on time overrun, the
t value was 41.103 with p ¼ 0.000. These two hypotheses were therefore accepted,
implying that variation orders have significant effects on both cost and time
overruns.

Conclusion
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:06 10 July 2017 (PT)

This study has shown that changes in specifications and scope, initiated mostly by
project owners and their consultants, are the most prevalent sources of variation. This
results mainly from changes in owners’ income/financial ability, changes in owners’
interests/requirements, design errors and insufficient time for preparation of contract
documents
The study concludes that variation had a significant impact on project cost and
time overruns and that project size and type did not significantly affect the
contribution of variations to project cost and time overruns. It is hoped that these
results will enable project owners, consultants, contractors and other stakeholders to
better understand and appreciate the real impact of variation on project
performance.

Level of
Project size F significance
Small Medium Large All statistic ( p value)

Mean contribution of variations to total Table IX.

cost overrun (per cent) 84.69 72.43 75.50 78.77 1.256 0.301 Contribution of variations
Mean contribution of variations to total to cost and time overruns
time overrun (per cent) 69.00 72.14 64.80 68.33 0.172 0.843 by project size

Project type F Level of significance

Public Private All statistic ( p value)

Mean contribution of variations to total cost Table X.

overrun (per cent) 82.93 75.59 78.77 1.256 0.301 Contribution of variations
Mean contribution of variations to total time to cost and time overruns
overrun (per cent) 66.00 70.12 68.33 0.172 0.843 by project type
 JEDT References
5,1 Adeyemi, A.Y., Oladapo, A.A. and Akindele, O. (2005), “Balancing globalisation, glocalisation
and the sustainable development equation in the Nigerian construction industry”, paper
presented at 3rd Postgraduate Conference, Johannesburg, 9-11 October.
AfDB/OECD (2004), “African economic outlook”, pp. 247-60, available at: www.chathamhouse.
org.uk/pdf/research/Africa/NIGERIA.pdf
44 Aniekwu, A. (1995), “The business environment of the construction industry in Nigeria”,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 13, pp. 445-55.
Arain, F.M. (2005), “Strategic management of variation orders for institutional buildings:
leveraging on information technology”, Proceedings of PMI Global Congress, Toronto,
Canada.
Ayininuola, G.M. and Olalusi, O.O. (2004), “Assessment of building failures in Nigeria: Lagos and
Ibadan case study”, African Journal of Science and Technology, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 73-8.
Baxendale, A.T. and Schofield, T.J. (1986), “Planning and progressing project variations”, in
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:06 10 July 2017 (PT)

Langford, D.A. and Retik, A. (Eds), The Organization and Management of Construction:
Shaping Theory and Practice, Vol. 2, E&FN SPON, London.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (1998), “Department of transportation, highways and rail programs
performance audit”, Report 98-2, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Cambridge, MA.
Chan, D.W.M. and Kumaraswamy, M.M. (1996), “An evaluation of construction time
performance in building industry”, Building and Environment, Vol. 31, pp. 569-78.
Chan, E.H.W. and Suen, H.C.H. (2005), “Dispute resolution management for international
construction projects in China”, Management Decision, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 589-602.
Elhag, T.M.S. and Boussabaine, A.H. (1999), “Evaluation of construction costs and time
attributes”, Proceedings of the 15th ARCOM Conference, Liverpool John Moores
University, 15-17 September, Vol. 2, pp. 473-80.
El-Haram, M.A. and Horner, M.W. (2002), “Factors affecting housing maintenance cost”, Journal
of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 115-23.
Gbeleyi, S.A. (2002), “An evaluation of the causes and effects of variation on building project
execution in Nigeria”, unpublished BSc dissertation, Department of Quantity Surveying,
Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife.
Hanna, A.S. and Gunduz, M. (2004), “Impact of change orders on small labor-intensive projects”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 130 No. 5, pp. 726-33.
Hanna, A.S., Camlic, R., Peterson, P.A. and Nordheim, E.V. (2002a), “Quantitative definition of
projects impacted by change orders”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE, Vol. 128 No. 1, pp. 57-64.
Hanna, A.S., Lotfallah, W.B. and Lee, M. (2002b), “Statistical-fuzzy approach to quantify
cumulative impact of change orders”, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 252-8.
Hanna, A.S., Russell, J.S., Nordheim, E.V. and Bruggink, M.J. (1999), “Impact of change orders on
labor efficiency for electrical construction”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE, Vol. 125 No. 4, pp. 224-32.
Hibberd, P.R. (1986), Variations on Construction Contracts, Collins, London.
Ibbs, C.W. (1997), “Change’s impact on construction productivity”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 123 No. 1, pp. 89-97.
Ibbs, C.W., Lee, S.A. and Li, M.I. (1998), “Fast tracking’s impact on project change”, Project
Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 35-41.
 Idrus, A.B. and Newman, J.B. (2002), “Construction related factors influencing choice of concrete Assessment of
floor systems”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 20, pp. 13-19.
the cost and time
Kwakye, A.A. (1997), Construction Project Administration in Practice, Addison Wesley,
Wokingham. impact
Love, P.E.D. and Edwards, D.J. (2004), “Determinants of rework in building construction
projects”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 259-74. 45
Morris, P.W.G. (1998), “Why project management doesn’t always make business sense”, Project
Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 12-16.
Motete, L., Mbachu, J. and Nkado, R. (2003), “An investigation into material wastages on building
sites”, Proceedings of CIDB 1st Postgraduate Conference, Port Elizabeth, South Africa,
pp. 288-95.
Odeyinka, H.A. and Yusif, A. (1997), “The causes and effects of construction delays on
completion cost of housing projects in Nigeria”, Journal of Financial Management of
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:06 10 July 2017 (PT)

Property and Construction, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 31-44.

Ogunlana, S.O., Promkuntong, K. and Jearkjirm, V. (1996), “Construction delays in fast-growing
economy: comparing Thailand with other economies”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 37-45.
Okuwoga, A.A. (1998), “Cost-time performance of public sector housing projects in Nigeria”,
Habitat International, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 389-95.
Oma-Williams, O.W. (1991), “Reorganising for project management in Nigeria”, The Nigerian
Quantity Surveyor, Vol. 13, pp. 5-8.
Planning Committee on National Construction Policy (1989) Draft National Construction Policy,
Federal Ministry of Works and Housing, Lagos.
Ramus, J. and Birchall, S. (1998), Contract Practice for Surveyors, 3rd ed., Laxtons, Oxford.
Revay, S.O. (2002), “Coping with extras”, The Revay Report, Vol. 21.
Smallwood, J. (2000), “Contractor performance: clients’ perceptions”, Proceedings of
2nd International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries: Challenges facing
the Construction Industry in Developing Countries, Gaborone Botswana, available at:
http://buildnet.csir.co.za/cdcproc/docs/2nd_proceedings.html#key (accessed 15-17
November).
Ssegawa, J.K., Mfolwe, K.M., Makuke, B. and Kutua, B. (2002), “Construction variations:
a scourge or a necessity”, Proceedings of the 1st CIB-W107 International Conference on
Creating a Sustainable Construction Industry in Developing Countries, Cape Town,
South Africa, available at www.odsf.co.za/cdcproc/docs/3rd/ssegawa_jk_mfolwe_km.pdf
(accessed 11-13 November).
Sterman, J.D. (1992), “System dynamics modeling for project management”, available at: www/
sdg/project.pdf">http://web.mit.edu/jsterman/www/SDG/project.pdf
Sutrisna, M., Potts, K. and Buckley, K. (2003), “An expert system as a potential decision-making
tool in the valuation of variations”, Proceedings of The RICS Foundation Construction and
Building Research Conference (COBRA), 1-2 September, University of Wolverhampton,
Wolverhampton.
Thomas, H.R. and Napolitan, C.L. (1995), “Quantitative effects of construction changes on labor
productivity”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, Vol. 121
No. 3, pp. 290-6.
 JEDT Transparency International (2005), “Preventing corruption on construction projects: risk
assessment and proposed actions for project owners”, available at: www.transparency.
5,1 org/in_focus_archive/gcr/neill/1_risk_assessment_owners.pdf
Tse, R.Y.C. and Love, P.E.D. (2003), “An economic analysis of the effect of delays on project
costs”, Journal of Construction Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 155-60.
Turner, D. (1984), Standard Contracts for Building, George Godwin, London.
46 Weisfeld, M. and Ciccozzi, J. (1999), “Software project management software by committee”,
Project Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 30-6.
Zaneldin, E. (2005), “Construction claims in the United Arab Emirates: causes, severity, and
frequency”, Proceedings of The Sixth Annual UAE University Research Conference, pp
ENG 96-ENG 105, available at: http://195.229.164.112/Conference_6/Proceedings/PDF/
Engineering/ENG_12.pdf
von Branconi, C. and Loch, C.H. (2004), “Contracting for major projects: eight business
levers for top management”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 22,
pp. 119-30.
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:06 10 July 2017 (PT)

Appendix. Questionnaire on the impact of variation orders on building projects

Questionnaire A: sources and causes of variation orders

Section A: Profile of organisations/respondents.

(1) Name of organization. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .

(2) Location of organization. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .
(3) Type of organization
a. [ ] Contracting, b. [ ] Consulting, c. [ ] Client
(4) Professional designation of the officer responding
a. [ ] Architect, b. [ ] Engineer, c. [ ] Quantity surveyor,
d. [ ] Other (Please specify). . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .
(5) Highest academic qualification of the officer responding
a. [ ] Ordinary National Diploma (OND), b. [ ] Higher National Diploma (HND),
c. [ ] BSc [ ] MSc, d. [ ] PhD, e. [ ] Others (Please specify). . .
(6) Professional qualification(s) of the officer responding
a. [ ] ANIQS, b. [ ] FNIQS, c. [ ] MNSE, d. [ ] FNSE,
e. [ ] MNIA, f. [ ] FNIA, g. [ ] Others (Please specify). . .. . .. . .. . .
(7) Years of professional experience (in the Nigerian construction industry) of the officer
responding
a. [ ] 1-5 years, b. [ ] 6-10 years, c. [ ] 11-15 years, d. [ ] 16-20 years,
e. [ ] Over 20 years

Section B: Sources and causes of variation orders in building projects.

(8) The following factors have been identified as some of the factors responsible for the
incidence of variation orders (VOs) in building projects. On a scale of 1 ¼ uncommon,
2 ¼ quite common, 3 ¼ common and 4 ¼ very common, rate the factors in their
contribution to VOs (Table AI).
 Contribution to variation orders
Assessment of
2 ¼ quite 4 ¼ very the cost and time
Factors 1 ¼ uncommon common 3 ¼ common common impact
Adjustment of PC and provisional
sums
Changes in project scope
Change in specifications
47
Natural occurrence (changes in
weather and geological conditions,
etc.)
Discrepancies in contract documents
Changes in government
policies/legislation
Errors/omissions in contract
documents Table AI.
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:06 10 July 2017 (PT)

(9) Rate the contributions of building owners (clients), contractors, consultants and
statutory/regulatory agencies to the incidence of VOs on a scale of 1 ¼ not significant,
2 ¼ quite significant, 3 ¼ significant and 4 ¼ very significant (Table AII).

Contribution to variation orders

1 ¼ not 2 ¼ quite 4 ¼ very
Project participants significant significant 3 ¼ significant significant

Building owners
Contractors change in
specifications
Consultants
Statutory/regulatory
agencies Table AII.

(10) The following are some of the factors responsible for building owner-related variations.
Rate their influences on the building owner’s decision to order variations to a project on a
scale of 1 ¼ not significant, 2 ¼ quite significant, 3 ¼ significant and 4 ¼ very
significant (Table AIII).

Contribution to variation orders

1 ¼ not 2 ¼ quite 4 ¼ very
Factors significant significant 3 ¼ significant significant

Changes in owners’
interests/requirements
Changes in owners’
income/financial ability
Technological changes
Improper preliminary advice by
consultants
Environmental influence (weather,
geology, etc.) Table AIII.
 JEDT (11) The following are some of the factors responsible for consultant-related variations. Rate
their influences on the incidence of consultant-related variations to a project on a scale of
5,1 1¼not significant, 2¼quite significant, 3¼significant and 4 ¼ very significant (Table AIV).

Contribution to variation orders

1 ¼ not 2 ¼ quite 4 ¼ very
48 Factors significant significant 3 ¼ significant significant

Insufficient time for preparation of

contract documents
Improper briefing by client
Lack of coordination among
consultants
Design defects
Designs not conforming to
Table AIV. statutory regulations/tests
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:06 10 July 2017 (PT)

(12) Please give any other information you think might be useful for this study.
. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .
. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .
. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .

Questionnaire B: cost and time data on the effect of variation orders on building projects
(1) Name of organization. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .
(2) Location of organization. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .
(3) Using Table AV , please provide information on completed projects which suffered both
time and cost overruns for which you have records.

Approx. Approx.
Approx. percentage Approx. percentage
Project percentage of cost percentage of time
type of cost overrun Initial Final of time overrun
(public Contract Final overrun due to contract completion overrun due to
or Year of sum (N¼ cost (N
¼ due to other period time due to other
a
private) execution million) million) VOs causes (months) (months) VOs causes

Table AV. Notes: a130 naira ¼ 1 US$, where the naira (N) is the Nigerian currency

Corresponding author
A.A. Oladapo can be contacted at: adeladapo@yahoo.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Richard Ohene Asiedu Koforidua Technical University Koforidua Ghana Ebenezer Adaku Ghana Institute
of Management and Public Administration Achimota Ghana De-Graft Owusu-Manu Kwame Nkrumah
University of Science and Technology Kumasi Ghana . 2017. Beyond the causes – rethinking mitigating
measures to avert cost and time overruns in construction projects. Construction Innovation 17:3. .
[Abstract] [PDF]
2. Jiankun Ma, Zhiliang Ma, Jiulin Li. 2017. An IPD-based incentive mechanism to eliminate change orders
in construction projects in China. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering . [CrossRef]
3. OyewobiLuqman Oyekunle Luqman Oyekunle Oyewobi Dr Luqman Oyekunle Oyewobi is a Lecturer
in the Department of Quantity Surveying, School of Environmental Technology, Federal University
of Technology, Minna, Niger State, Nigeria. He holds HND, B.Tech (Hons) and M.Tech all in
Quantity Surveying. He is a Corporate Member of the Nigerian Institute of Quantity Surveyors and
also a Registered Quantity Surveyor with the Quantity Surveyors Registration Board of Nigeria. Dr
Oyekunle’s research interests include performance measurement and strategic performance management.
Downloaded by EKB Data Center At 10:06 10 July 2017 (PT)

JimohRichard Richard Jimoh Dr Richard Jimoh is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Building,
Federal University of Technology, Minna, Niger State, Nigeria. Dr Jimoh is a Corporate Member of
the Nigerian Institute of Building and a Registered Builder with the Council of Registered Builders
of Nigeria (CORBON). He has more than 10 years of experience in both teaching and practice in the
construction industry. Dr Jimoh has practised in, lectured and researched on sustainable housing and
social housing development. GaniyuBashir Olanrewaju Bashir Olanrewaju Ganiyu Bashir Olanrewaju
Ganiyu is a Lecturer in the Department of Quantity Surveying, Federal University of Technology
Minna, Nigeria. He holds B.Tech(Hons) in Quantity Surveying and an Msc degree in Construction
Management. Mr Ganiyu’s research interest is in the areas of Construction Economics and Management
and sustainable housing development. Mr Ganiyu is a Corporate Member of The Nigerian Institute
of Quantity Surveyors (NIQS) and also a Registered Quantity Surveyor (RQS), having registered with
Quantity Surveyors Registration Board of Nigeria (QSRBN). ShittuAbdullateef Adewale Abdullateef
Adewale Shittu Abdullateef Adewale Shittu is a Lecturer in the Department of Quantity Surveying
at the Federal University of Technology, Minna, Niger State, Nigeria. He holds a Bachelor’s Degree
(Hons) in Quantity Surveying from the Federal University of Technology, Minna, Nigeria. He had his
Master’s Degree (MSc) in Construction Management from University of Jos, Nigeria. He is currently
undertaking his PhD programme at the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria – Nigeria. His areas of research
interest are fire safety, construction cost modelling and health and safety management. Quantity Surveying
Department, Federal University of Technology, Minna, Nigeria Building Department, Federal University
of Technology, Minna, Nigeria Quantity Surveying Department, Federal University of Technology,
Minna, Nigeria . 2016. Analysis of causes and impact of variation order on educational building projects.
Journal of Facilities Management 14:2, 139-164. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Abdulaziz M. Jarkas, Rashid A. Al Balushi, P.K. Raveendranath. 2015. Determinants of construction
labour productivity in Oman. International Journal of Construction Management 15:4, 332-344. [CrossRef]
5. Elisa Atália Daniel Muianga, Ariovaldo Denis Granja, Joyce de Andrade Ruiz. 2015. Desvios de custos e
prazos em empreendimentos da construção civil: categorização e fatores de influência. Ambiente Construído
15:1, 79-97. [CrossRef]
6. Ismail Abdul Rahman, Aftab Hameed Mem, Ahmad Tarmizi Abd. Karim. 2013. Significant Factors
Causing Cost Overruns in Large Construction Projects in Malaysia. Journal of Applied Sciences 13:2,
286-293. [CrossRef]