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

net/publication/327349461

A statistical approach to assess the schedule delays and risks in Indian

construction industry

Article in International Journal of Construction Management · August 2018

DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2018.1484991

CITATIONS READS

15 831

4 authors:

Muneeswaran Govindaraj Devadas Manoharan P

L&T Construction Chennai Anna University, Chennai
3 PUBLICATIONS 15 CITATIONS 77 PUBLICATIONS 559 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Paul Awoyera Adeyemi Adesina

Covenant University Ota Ogun State, Nigeria University of Windsor
122 PUBLICATIONS 1,513 CITATIONS 98 PUBLICATIONS 788 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

CALL FOR PAPERS: Special Issue on Transforming By-products into Material for Use in Construction Technology View project

Risk Analysis and Mangement in Construction using Fuzzy Logic View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muneeswaran Govindaraj on 25 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Construction Management

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

A statistical approach to assess the schedule

delays and risks in Indian construction industry

G. Muneeswaran, P. Manoharan, P. O. Awoyera & A. Adesina

To cite this article: G. Muneeswaran, P. Manoharan, P. O. Awoyera & A. Adesina (2018): A

statistical approach to assess the schedule delays and risks in Indian construction industry,
International Journal of Construction Management, DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2018.1484991

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2018.1484991

Published online: 31 Aug 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjcm20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2018.1484991

A statistical approach to assess the schedule delays and risks in Indian

construction industry
G. Muneeswarana, P. Manoharanb, P. O. Awoyerac and A. Adesinad
a
Civil Engineering Department, CEG, Anna University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India; bStructural Engineering Division, CEG, Anna
University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India; cCivil Engineering Department, Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria; dDepartment of Building,
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Construction projects are highly complex and dynamic in nature. However, its dynamicity sub- Construction; schedule
jects it to several delays and risks; before, during and after construction. Therefore, it is para- delay; fuzzy ranking;
mount to identify the possible sources of delays and risks so as to prioritize them. This study questionnaire; risk factors;
risk prioritization; relative
used a literature review and perception of construction professionals in the Indian construction importance index; tendering
industries to assess and prioritize delays and risks. Statistical analysis using relative importance
index and fuzzy ranking was employed to identify, assess, and prioritize delays and risks in the
Indian construction industry context. Inadequate schedule was found to be the most critical risk,
which constitutes a long-term problem in any construction projects. New risks were identified in
the tendering stage. It is anticipated that the result of this study would be a guidebook for all
stakeholders in the construction industry to assess and prevent any possible delay and risk in
their construction processes.

Introduction (1995) identified 56 factors that are responsible for

Delays in the construction process may be avoided or
minimized when the likely causes are clearly identi-
fied. Schedule risk finds its own significance in any
construction projects as delay of schedule directly
influence cost and profit margin of a project as well
as the brand image of a company. All clients are will-
ing to finish the project ahead of schedule by keeping
in mind business outcome expected from the project,
but in practice, almost all contractors find it difficult
to meet actual schedule committed in bidding time.
Various studies have proposed different assessment
and mitigation measures for schedule delay in a pro-
ject (Tah and Carr 2000; Wang et al. 2004; Tripathi
and Jha 2018), where the gaps between theory and
practice are addressed.
Also, construction processes are also exposed to
various types of risk. Several studies have identified
and classified various risk factors experienced in
the construction industries. Among all the factors,
meeting schedule objectives is the most prominent
(Aziz, 213). This is as a result of time being the main
concern to constructors throughout the lifecycle of a
project. In a bid to evaluate the causes of delays in
large-scale construction in Saudi Arabia, Assaf et al.
the project delays. The most significant of the factors
are (i) approval of shop drawings, (ii) payment delays,
(iii) changes in design, (iv) conflicts among subcon-
tractors, (v) slow decision-making and executive bur-
eaucracy and (vi) inadequate labour and required
skills. In a related study, Assaf and Al-Hejji (2006)
examined 73 causes of schedule delay in Saudi con-
struction industries. It was observed that most proj-
ects experience 10–30% schedule delays from the
original duration, which is an indication that delay is
a critical issue in any construction project. Also, their
study identified change order as the prominent cause
of delay in projects.
Chan and Kumaraswamy (1997) carried out a sur-
vey to determine the relative significance rating of 83
potential risk factors, these factors were grouped into
8 major categories for solving problems applicable to
the Hong Kong scenario. Kaming et al. (1997) in their
study of 31 high-rise projects in Indonesian construc-
tion projects, discovered that about 54% of construc-
tion managers complete more than 90% of projects in
time, about 15% of managers complete only between
70 and 90% of projects, and about 30% complete less
than 70%. Al-Momani (2000) did a quantitative

CONTACT P. O. Awoyera paul.awoyera@covenantuniversity.edu.ng

ß 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 G. MUNEESWARAN ET AL.
analysis of construction schedule delays using 130
public projects in Jordan. Several other authors devel-
oped frameworks and models which could solve prob-
lems of schedule delay in their locations (Doloi et al.
2012; Gunduz et al. 2013; Choudhry et al. 2014;
Larsen et al. 2016; Kadry et al. 2017).
There are significant numbers of stakeholders on
any construction project; this usually makes the
assessment of delay and risk as a whole network a dif-
ficult task. However, at the same time, these projects
offer the best environment for risk management
study. Construction projects are faced with risks
which play a vital role in cost and schedule perform-
ance of a project. The project management body of
knowledge (PMBOK) guide defines risk as a measure
of the probability and consequence of not achieving a
well-defined project goal. There are two primary com-
ponents that are associated with risks in a given
event. One is the probability of occurrence of that
event, and another is the impact of the event. Over
the years, experience has shown that risk is inherently
present in most construction projects (Al-Bahar and
Crandall 1990). Risks are becoming inevitable in the
construction projects, especially when complicated
contracts govern construction processes. Risk factors
in the construction industry are identified based on
risk assessments or models/tools developed using
available information. Some of the methods used are
relative importance index, descriptive statistics, and
factor analysis approach. Al-Bahar and Crandall
(1990) proposed a risk model known as construction
risk management system (CRMS), which could be
used by contractors in identifying project risks and
systematically manage them. Several other authors
have explored the risks variability in construction
firms based on questionnaire evaluations with SPSS
and other promising statistical tools (Kangari 1995;
Hameed and Woo 2007). In other related studies, risk
assessment models were developed using factors that
have been identified to influence the smooth comple-
tion of a project (Subramanyan et al. 2012; El-Sayegh
and Mansour 2015; Liu et al. 2016). These studies
showed that the risk of an improper design scheme is
significantly associated with the risk of designers’ lack
of responsibility and experience. In addition, inaccur-
acy and delay of third-party information have a sig-
nificant negative impact on project performance.
Basically, delay and risk assessment and manage-
ment are used to meet project objectives related to
cost, schedule, and quality. An entity responsible for
the occurrence of any risk event is referred to as ‘risk
responsible owner’ (Yoon et al. 2015). The entities
could emanate from any of the following: cost centres,
profit centres, or externals sources.
Fuzzy ranking is one of the ways in which risk can
be assessed statistically; other methods include the
Monte Carlo simulation, Pareto, Delphi, and Probability
analysis. Several studies have explored the use of Fuzzy
knowledge in quantitative risk analysis (Tah and Carr
2001; Tsai and Yang 2010; Abdelgawad and Fayek 2011;
Challal and Tkiouat 2012). Fuzzy knowledge representa-
tion model was developed to support quantitative risk
analysis and a subsequent prototype software implemen-
tation (Tah and Carr 2001). This includes a method of
ranking fuzzy numbers with total integral value method.
The ranking incorporates both the left and right integral
values, which represents the pessimistic and optimistic
viewpoints of the decision maker, respectively. A fuzzy
set is a non-probabilistic method used in subjective
modelling that overcomes the shortcomings (inability to
deal with uncertainty, and process inconsistent informa-
tion) of the probabilistic methods. Fuzzy approach is
used due to the distinctive features of a project, lack of
data, and subjectivity. Ranking of fuzzy numbers was
originally proposed by Jain (1976) for decision-making
(Nejad and Mashinchi 2011), whereby ill-defined quan-
tities are represented as a fuzzy set. However, Thorani
et al. (2012) proposed a new ranking method for rank-
ing crisp numbers, which are a special type of fuzzy
numbers that is applied in relative important index.
Use of relative important index and fuzzy ranking
in risk analysis has gained popularity over the years
(Tran et al. 2012; Askari et al. 2014; Yang and Wang
2015). However, it has not been overly utilized for
ranking and prioritization of risk factors in an Indian
construction context. Therefore, this study employs
the use of relative importance index and fuzzy rank-
ing to assess the delay and risk, respectively, in the
Indian construction industry. These approaches are
deemed more suitable technique for vague and sub-
jective assessment in decision-making environments.
This study is important as it assesses delays and ranks
critical risks in India construction industry. It is
anticipated that the result of this study would be a
guidebook for all stakeholders in the construction
industry to assess and prevent any possible delay and
risk in their construction processes.
Research methodology
This study utilized questionnaire data that was
obtained from construction manager’s feedback. The
questions input in the questionnaire were based on
delay and risk factors identified in the literature. The

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Schedule delay and risk factors
Identification
Questionnaire Survey Preparation
incorporating Experts feedback
Survey circulation and Collection of
feedback
Analysis of data using relative importance
index method and fuzzy ranking of factors)
Mitigation measures for top critical delays
and risk factors identified
Figure 1. Research methodology.
Ã(x)
wÃ
0 a1 a2 a3 a4
Figure 2. Trapezoidal Fuzzy number.
feedbacks are further analysed using different statis-
tical methods. The methodology followed is simplified
on the chart shown in Figure 1.
Factors identification
Delay and risk factors selected from past studies were
classified into six categories. The categories are (i)
financial, (ii) design, (ii) execution, (iii) management,
and (iv) political and safety. Factors matrix table is
prepared with author details to cover the frequency of
factors used by different authors in different locations
Survey
Based on the factors identified through literature
review, a questionnaire was developed. Questionnaires
were administered to various construction companies
in all regions of India. Since construction site manag-
ers play a crucial role in any construction project, the
respondent for the questionnaire was decided to
include project manager, planning, quality, safety, and
execution managers. All managers are referred to as
construction site managers. Total of 50 construction
companies was selected from various regions of India.
A total of 250 participants in the survey were tar-
geted, but only 195 respondents turned-in within the
stipulated time. Feedbacks of 45 respondents were
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 3
Existing Literature Study
Semi structured Interview
with Experts
expunged due to incomplete responses. Finally, data
obtained from 150 respondents, representing about 60%
of all respondents, were taken for analysis. The
respondent’s years of experience were between 5 years
and 25 years and above. On an average, each person
had handled a minimum of four projects independently
in their career, which shows that feedback provided by
respondents are collective reliable experience based on
600 construction projects experience. Questionnaire sur-
vey has been performed through various modes like
hardcopy, email, Google forms and in-person interviews
for some managers who were nearby.
Relative importance index (RII) approach
Relative importance index method of analysis was
used to find the important sources of delay in con-
struction projects. The 5-point Likert scale was used
to ascertain the relative importance index for all the
risk factors that contribute to schedule delay in India
construction industries. The analysis of the data cap-
tured from questionnaire survey was in line with that
used in earlier studies (Kometa et al. 1994; Aibinu
and Odeyinka 2006; Sambasivan and Soon 2007). The
studies adopted relative importance index (RII) for
measuring the various causes of delays. A 5-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (very low important) to 5
(very high important) was utilized. But the relative
importance index (RII) is calculated as
Xn
Wi
RII ¼ (1)
i¼0
AN
where Wi is the total sum factors, A is the highest
weight and N is the total number of respondents for
every variable
4 G. MUNEESWARAN ET AL.

Fuzzy approach Table 1. Linguistic classification for risk factors (adapted from
Thorani et al. 2012).
Fuzzy numbers were formulated based on the general- Probability of Trapezoidal
ized trapezoidal

method as described by (Chen et al. occurrence Impact of risk fuzzy numbers
2006). Thus, A¼ (a1 ,a2 ,a3 ,a4 ; wA~ ) and are shown in Very rare (VR) Very low (VL) (0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3; 1)
Rare (R) Low (L) (0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4; 1)
Figure 2. The membership function lA~ (x): R ! [0, 1] Often (O) Moderate (M) (0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6; 1)
is defined as follows: Frequent (F) Serious (S) (0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8; 1)
8 Very frequent (VF) Critical (C) (0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1; 1)
> xa1
>
>  wA~ ; x 2 ða1 ; a2 Þ
>
< a2  a1 w ~ ; x 2 a ; a
>
ð 2 3Þ
lA~ ðxÞ ¼ xa
A
>
>
4
 wA~ ; x 2 ða3 ; a4 Þ
>
>
: a3  a4
>
0; x 2 ð1; a1 Þ [ ða4 ; 1Þ
(2)
Here, a1  a2  a3  a4 and wA~ 2 [0,1]
Real numbers are used as the elements of the gen-
eralized trapezoidal fuzzy numbers xeR, and its mem-
bership function lA~ (x) is a regular and continuous
convex function. This implies the membership degree
to the fuzzy sets –1 a1 a2 a3 a41. Then, A ~ is
taken as the normalized trapezoidal fuzzy number,
meaning that, if wA~ ¼ 1, then A ~ is the trapezoidal
fuzzy number (a1, a2, a3, a4); if a1< a2¼ a3 < a4, Figure 3. Professional work experience of respondents.
then A ~ will be reduced to a triangular fuzzy number.
If a1¼ a2¼ a3¼a4, then A ~ is reduced to a
real number.
Using method of incentre of centroids (Thorani in both probability (P) and impact (I) form can be
et al. 2012), Equation (3) defines the ranking function calculated as:
~ ¼ (a, b, 
h i
of the generalized trapezoidal fuzzy number A 1   
F ij ¼ F ij1 þ F ij2 þ . . . :: þ F ijk (4)
c, d; w), which also maps the set of all fuzzy numbers
 k
to a set of real numbers. Crisp risk rating R (A) of Equation (5) is used for calculating the fuzzy risk
each influencing factor was calculated by using rating of each risk factor:
Equation (3). The linguistic classification used for risk    
factors are presented in Table 1. Risk Rating ¼ F ij P  F ij I (5)

RðAÞ¼ x0  y0

a aþ2b
3 þb 3 þc 3
bþc 2cþd
a w þ b w3 þ c w3 Results and discussion
¼  3 (3)
aþbþc aþbþc Survey
Figures 3 and 4 show the profiles of the questionnaire
respondents. More than half of the respondents have
Risk rating over 15 years employment in the construction indus-
The concept of fuzzy arithmetic operation is applied try. The sector of the construction industry in which
to form aggregation rule for translating 150 the respondents work varies from buildings, transpor-
Construction Managers individual decisions into com- tation to power construction. Approximately 45% of
bined (aggregated) preference. Aggregation involves the respondents have work in projects valued at 75
combining the fuzzy sets to form a single collective million US dollars.
preference fuzzy set, such as, if k is the number of
construction managers (CMt where t ¼ 1,2 … k,), who
Risk and delay assessment
are responsible for assessing m risks (Ri, i ¼ 1 … ., m),
with corresponding n risk factors

(Fi,j¼ 1,2 … n) . The Risk and delay factors are ranked based on relative
aggregated fuzzy preferences (F ij) of each risk factor importance index method, and the ranking is
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 5

Figure 4. (a) Value of projects respondents have carried out. (b) Construction sector of respondents.

Table 2. Relative importance index for risk factors.

Factor Risk factors Category RII Rank
F48 Unrealistic cycle time taken for some tasks in schedule during bidding time Tender related 0.915 1
F34 Inadequate experienced labour Labour 0.907 2
F20 Lack of design engineers experience in construction projects Design 0.894 3
F10 Poor relationship and ego between teams plays critical role in delay of activities Contractor 0.891 4
F7 Ineffective project planning and scheduling Contractor 0.886 5
F32 Low efficiency of equipment Equipment 0.880 6
F9 Lack of talented people for handling jobs at site Contractor 0.878 7
F26 Poor procurement system Materials 0.875 8
F39 Change in construction methodology at later stage due to constraints Construction methodology 0.874 9
F36 Low productivity of labour Labour 0.867 10
F49 Past projects failure history and lessons not taken in to consideration during tender scheduling Tender related 0.862 11
F13 Poor communication and coordination between owner and consultant Contractor 0.856 12
F47 Tendering team less experience on similar projects of tight schedule Tender related 0.853 13
F4 Delay in approving GA alignment/architectural layout Client 0.851 14
F42 Less productivity achievement at site due to new construction techniques Construction methodology 0.846 15
F11 Rework due to errors Contractor 0.840 16
F3 Slowness in decision-making Client 0.830 17
F16 Poor communication between contractor and client Design Consultant 0.802 18
F41 Less experience of design team in new construction methods Construction methodology 0.800 19
F35 Shortage of labour Labour 0.795 20
F15 Lack of consultant experience on similar projects Design Consultant 0.794 21
F23 Design approvals delays Design 0.789 22
F51 Less team members handled more tender jobs simultaneously leads to mistakes in considerations Tender related 0.781 23
F46 Client provided tight schedule for project Tender related 0.779 24
F8 Poor site management and supervision Contractor 0.773 25
F45 Damage in permanent structure due to mistake in consultant design by underestimating construc- Construction methodology 0.773 26
tion loads
F31 Equipment allocation problem Equipment 0.768 27
F29 Shortage of equipment Equipment 0.766 28
F6 Delay in land acquisition and hand over Client 0.765 29
F50 Poor investigation at the time of tender and taking client data for design without verification Tender related 0.749 30
F21 Unclear and inadequate details in drawings Design 0.747 31
F12 Frequent change of subcontractor Contractor 0.720 32
F19 Design changes by owner or his agent during construction Design 0.682 33
F30 Frequent equipment breakdowns Equipment 0.646 34
F1 Delay in progress payments (funding problems) Client 0.643 35
F38 Conflict within the labours Labour 0.616 36
F43 Construction drawings delivery time by design team Construction methodology 0.613 37
F33 Due to wrong handling of equipment Equipment 0.608 38
F37 Labour strikes Labour 0.606 39
F2 Change orders. Client 0.600 40
F25 Late delivery of materials Materials 0.598 41
F27 Escalation of material prices Materials 0.595 42
F14 Delay in approving major changes in scope of work by consultant Design Consultant 0.594 43
F40 New construction technology first time application in project Construction methodology 0.590 44
F18 Delay in performing inspection and testing Design Consultant 0.589 45
F17 Inadequate project management assistance Design Consultant 0.584 46
F24 Shortage of construction materials Materials 0.579 47
F44 Damage in permanent structure due to mistake in construction method Construction methodology 0.576 48
F22 Complexity of project design Design 0.573 49
F28 Changes in material types and specifications during construction Materials 0.571 50
F5 Poor communication and coordination between consultant and contractor Client 0.550 51
6 G. MUNEESWARAN ET AL.
Figure 5. Relative importance index for factor categories.
presented in Table 2. RII greater than 0.80 is consid-
ered as most important factors governing the schedule
for a project (Chan and Kumaraswamy 1997). Most
critical factors are briefly discussed below based on
the understanding of factors. Average values of factors
are taken for assessment of relative importance index
of each category as shown in Figure 5.
F48-Unrealistic cycle time taken for some tasks
in schedule during bidding time (RII-0.915) – Cycle
time considered in bidding play a key role in resource
planning and allocation for projects. Changes in the
actual planned cycle lead to a shortage of resources
(i.e. workforce, equipment, etc.). For bid submission
purpose, tight schedule with assumed cycle time is
sometimes unrealistic in some cases. This has been
noted by some other authors as well (Gładysz et al.
2015; Roy et al. 2015; Jayasudha and Vidivelli 2016).
F34 – Inadequate experienced labour (RII-0.907) –
Labour availability is the major problem faced by
many projects. In addition, some construction proj-
ects require advanced skilled personnel which is most
time unavailable or expensive to get. This has resulted
in schedule delay and low productivity.
F20 – Lack of design engineers experience (RII-
0.894) – Design engineers recruited in consultant or
contractor’s office should have required skills to carry
out the job in a timely manner. This would ensure
timely processing of design submissions which would
ensure that projects can be started on the
planned dates.
F10 – Poor relationship and ego between teams
play a critical role in the delay of activities (RII-
0.891) – This factor is associated with the interper-
sonal relationship between different stakeholders in a
construction project. An outstanding relationship
between the stakeholders would ensure that objective
of the projects are well understood and would prevent
any possible delay.
F7-Ineffective project planning and scheduling
(RII-0.886) – Effectiveness of project planning team
will decide the schedule success in any project. Proper
coordination with all teams will ensure ease progress
of the project.
F32 – Low efficiency of equipment and less prod-
uctivity (RII-0.880) – Construction equipment hired
from subcontractors should be of required efficiency
during operations. Inefficient or unavailability of
equipment can halt or delay the progress of
construction.
F9 – Lack of talented people for handling jobs at
a site (RII-0.878) – For successful execution and
completion of the project. Skilled personnel will pro-
mote the quick execution of the project while doing
an effective job.
F26 – Poor procurement system (RII-0.875) –
Effective procurement system should be available for
a project to become successful in practice.
F39-Change in construction methodology at a
later stage (RII-0.874) – deviation from planned exe-
cution techniques during the course of a project will
lead to a schedule delay. This schedule delay is usually
as a result of non-availability of materials or equip-
ment required for the new technique.
F36 – Low productivity of labour (RII-0.867) –
Poor estimation of the capability of the workers and
equipment can lead to low productivity. Therefore,
proper prediction of the possible productive output
must be made to avoid any schedule delays.
F49 Past projects failure history and lessons not
taken into consideration during tender scheduling
(RII-0.862) – Construction stakeholders are meant to
learn from past mistakes done in previous projects.
However, this is always ignored and current projects
are also exposed to the same type of mistakes exposed
to earlier. It is essential to take note of this past fail-
ures and mistakes as early as when the tendering is

Figure 6. Fuzzy ranking of risk factors.
Figure 7. Percentage of risk for different categories of factor.
done, this would prevent any possible delay during
the course of execution of the project.
F13 Poor communication and coordination
between owner and consultant (RII-0.856) –
Communication gap between project stakeholders is
one of the key factors identified, and this is a com-
mon problem faced in many projects. This factor
indicates poor communication skills of Contractor
between client and consultant. If client inputs are not
properly conveyed to a consultant there will be mis-
understanding and problems created in work progress
at the site.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 7
F47-Tendering team less experience on similar
projects of tight schedule (RII-0.853) – Contractors
tendering team engineers who are involved in the bid-
ding of projects should have suitable experience on
tight schedule projects. That experience brings visual-
ization of problems expected in the execution stage.
F4 Delay in approving GA alignment/architec-
tural layout (RII-0.851) – General arrangement lay-
out for any project should be approved by the client
in time, if any delay in approval of GA or
Architectural layout initially by the client will have
implication in schedule progress.
 8

Table 3. Risks factors from literature review.

(Al-Bahar (Yang (Tsai (Challal (Odimabo (Tipili (El-Sayegh (Choi
Risk and (Mulholland (M. Wang (Nasir (Jintanapakanont (Fang (S. Wang (Hameed (Tang (Zou (Lam (Loosemore (Sun (Zhou and and and (Karim (Gunduz and (Ismail and and and (Larsen Interview
Factors/ Crandall (Kangari and Christian and Chou et al. and et al. et al. and et al. et al. et al. and (Abd-El-Razek et al. et al. Wei, Yang, (Dey Tkiouat et al. et al. (Aziz Oduoza et al. Ilyasu (Jaber Mansour Mahadevan et al. with 10
Authors 1990) 1995) 1999) 2003) 2003) Ghosh 2004) 2004) 2004) Woo 2007) 2007) 2010) 2007) McCarthy 2008) et al. 2008) 2008) 2008) 2010) 2010) 2012) 2012) 2012) 2013) 2013) 2013) 2014) 2014) 2015) 2015) 2008) 2016) Experts Frequency
RF 33 23 85 28 59 59 45 28 31 32 85 16 23 32 57 50 30 60 21 54 25 83 99 44 35 19 63 33 48 26 33
F1               13
F2        6
F3              12
F4 
F5        7
F6              13
F7         7
F8        6
F9               13
F10      5
G. MUNEESWARAN ET AL.

F11  1
F12      4
F13 
F14   2
F15    3
F16                 15
F17    2
F18             12
F19     4
F20     3
F21                  16
F22           10
F23         8
F24     3
F25           10
F26 
F27 
F28     4
F29       5
F30    2
F31         8
F32   1
F33    2
F34   2
F35  1
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 9

Table 4. Category and description of risk factors.

Risk factors Description of risk factors
Execution risks F1 Inadequate schedule Under estimated schedule /Schedule delay
F2 Poor decision-making during construction Dynamic decision-making skills are absent
F3 Non availability of resources Material/manpower/equipment not available
F4 Timely permissions for execution Permission for execution of work at all levels in team should
be provided at right time.
F5 Design changes and hold in work at site Due to change in design, work will be stopped
F6 Varied labour and equipment productivity Non consistency in labour and equipment productivity
Design risks F7 Late modifications of design by client Due to changes made by client/owner at later stage of con-
struction will have implication
F8 Inaccurate site investigations (Geotech, Survey) Design using assumption without accurate site data.
F9 Defective design Mistake in design by consultant
F10 Poor coordination of design (Structural, Mech, Poor coordination between all design team made delay in
and Electrical) approvals/submissions
F11 Rush design and Overconfident in design Due to work pressure design consultants may make mistake
during rush design and overconfident.
F12 Lack of experience of design team in construc- Concern working team in project and team leader should have
tion projects required similar project experience to handle project and to
meet submission schedule.
Management risks F13 Lack of organizational commitment in Controlling project risks should be there as part of project
risk management objectives by management.
F14 Changes in management ways and Top management changes in company will have change in
new management thought process in taking risks
F15 Submittal and approval process control Management should have control on consultant and sub-con-
tractor schedules
F16 Poor project strategies /control Strategies should be formulated project specific based on
uniqueness of project location and cost and same should
be controlled properly.
F17 loosing of talented staff at crucial point of Project manager or design manager who handled project left
construction organization due to some reasons will have implication on
project quality and Schedule.
F18 Coordination between design firms, subcon- Consultants and sub-contractors should be managed well till
tractors and others the project is commissioned
Financial risks F19 Errors in bids / quotations Mistakes during tendering of project
F20 Fluctuations in estimated finance Estimated project cost is exceeded due to some reasons will
than expected made financial problems during execution
F21 Price Inflation Price increase will have implication on profit margin
F22 Delayed payments on contract Payment delay will impact on cash flow of project
F23 Financial failure of contractor Contractor failed financially
F24 Subcontractor payments in time Releasing payments to sub-contractors in time and manage-
and management ment of them will make project success
Political risks F25 New government act or legislations Due to new policy or act by government construction projects
already commenced will be affected
F26 Pressure from political body Local pressure from politicians for using subcontractor
F27 Local bodies compelling to use resources Some regions local bodies will compel to avail materials or
Equipments from them which may be of inferior in quality.
(Example. Cement, bricks etc.)
F28 Insecurity and crime Political instability would inhibit the progression of a prokect
F29 Bribery and corruption Bribes for approval process
F30 Lack of rigorous enforcement of safety Poor control of safety rules and regulations by safety manager
regulations
Safety risks F31 Occurrence of accidents Accidents due to poor safety practices
F32 Contractor ignoring safety under sched- Construction projects always be in pressure by nature will
ule pressure leads to less concentration of safety measures as everyone
will focus on milestone
F33 Poor safety consciousness of workers Most of workers are less conscious even though enough safety
norms advised and trained
F34 Lack of PPE In some projects PPE availability will be less since planning
is poor.
F35 Excessive overtime work for labour Labour working hours will have relation in Safety as they are
overloaded which made them to not followed safety norms
all time.

F42 Less productivity achievement at site due to Risk prioritization

new construction techniques (RII-0.846) – New con-
struction techniques first time application in projects
will take some time for normalizing the process, ini-
tially, the project team will suffer in achieving
the schedule.
Various risk factors identified from the literature are
presented in Table 3 and a brief description of the
risk factors is presented in Table 4. RF in Table 3
indicates the total number of risk factors considered
in earlier studies by different authors.
10 G. MUNEESWARAN ET AL.
This stage of the study identified 35 risk factors
from past studies as shown in Table 4 and Figure 6,
and based on fuzzy approach risk factors were ranked.
Top 10 critical risk factors identified are briefly
discussed below based on factors understanding.
Figure 7 shows the risk percentage of different fac-
tor categories.
Inadequate schedule (F1) – First and most critical
risk identified is the inadequate schedule which was a
long-term problem in any construction projects faced
by most of the contractors and the same is reflected
in feedback provided by construction managers.
Contractors ignoring safety under pressure (F32) –
This factor related to human life which is not compen-
sable as directly related to the life of an individual and
safety of the employee. Due to concentration in meeting
schedule requirements which may be already delayed,
team focus on safety aspects reduced. This factor was
indirectly governed by the schedule of the project.
Timely permission for execution of work (F4) –
Third factor is permission required for carrying out
work. In some projects waiting time for permission to
take up the task also considered as one of the key risks.
If timely permissions not granted by a respective team
like the design, planning, procurement etc. Each team
might have different Justification for not giving permis-
sion but the client may not agree on all reasons. So
there should be proper planning by all teams which will
allow reasonable waiting time for clearance.
Inaccurate/Insufficient site investigation (F8) –
Site investigation is the first step in any construction
projects which will go in parallel along with design
approval process. The construction industry is not
like manufacturing industry where there is a chain of
activities one by one only possible. In construction
industry design consultant supposed to start the
design with few data available or based on tender
data which contractor will verify in execution stage
during the course of work only. If consultant wait for
complete Site investigation approval will be delayed.
Very old and big companies also lose enough money
due to this risk factor. Poor judgment of soil data or
just to save some money, investigations costs are cut
down as against the minimum code requirements
which in turn create dangerous effect over a period.
Based on the quality of Geotech vendor results will be
accurate or poor. Less accurate and fewer data consid-
ered for design and assumption will have worst effect
in some projects.
Poor decision-making during construction (F5) –
during construction, Site Managers should be well
equipped in decision-making skills so that no waiting
or idle time in a project which will save time
and cost.
Non-availability of resources (F3) – Due to
resource non-availability in project site work got suf-
fered in many locations, equipment will be available
whereas skilled labour for operating the same will be
a shortage. Some projects labour and equipment will
be there but cement or sand availability in the market
will be demand. Labour, material, and equipment all
are interrelated all resources should be available at the
required time in the project to achieve the pro-
ject schedule.
Subcontractor payments (F24) – Proper payment
of subcontractor is directly linked with a supply of
labour, material and construction progress at the site.
Sub-contractors can accept late payments to some
extent of his capability only.
Loosing of talented staff at the crucial point of
construction (F17) – Nowadays retaining a talented
employee in the industry is critical requirements for
any company. Employee satisfaction is a more
important factor to achieve the good results in proj-
ects. This is one of hidden risk in construction. If tal-
ented staff who control projects for few years
suddenly left organization will have an impact on
project delivery.
Bribery and corruption (F29) – Bribery plays a
crucial role in government approval process for gov-
ernment projects and bill clearance/approval by the
government. Corruption meant here is dishonesty or
fraud activities during the course of the project by
any member of the project team.
Late modifications of design by the client (F7) –
Due to changes by the client at later stage new design
approval process will be initiated and considerable
time will be consumed for rework, but resources
planned will be idle at the site. This is considered as
one of the key risks in the construction industry.
Conclusions
This study focuses on the use of relative importance
index and fuzzy ranking to assess the schedule delay
and risk in the Indian construction industry. Various
delays and risks were identified, assessed, and priori-
tized, which would serve as a guidebook for stake-
holders in the Indian construction industry.
Based on the risk prioritization, inadequate sched-
ule was found to be the most critical risk, which con-
stitutes a long-term problem in any construction
project. New risks were also identified in the tender-
ing stage. It was observed that delays and risks

emanate at the tendering stage of any project, and
factors such as underrating past mistakes and the use
of inexperience tendering team have significant
impact on projects.
It is suggested that more focus should be placed on
this stage of a project in order to avoid inherent
delays and risks. The study pinpointed that well expe-
rienced personnel are needed at the tendering stage,
and their experience can aid visualization of problems
expected in the execution stage of a project.
This study explored schedule delay and risk
together as related to the Indian scenario. The Indian
government has proposed delay and risk rating sys-
tem, which can help the development of projects at a
faster pace through rapid decision taking. This study
can help the government to develop a strategy to mit-
igating schedule delay and risk in projects.
Acknowledgments
The authors are very grateful to the many architects, quan-
tity surveyors, engineers, contractors, and officers of gov-
ernment departments, for their helpful cooperation in
completing the questionnaire used in the survey. The
authors also wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for
their thoughtful and valuable feedback that has improved
this article.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by
the authors.
ORCID
P. O. Awoyera http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6212-5090
References
Abd El-Razek M, Bassioni H, Mobarak A. 2008. Causes of
delay in building construction projects in Egypt. J Const
Eng Manag. 134(11):831–841.
Abdelgawad M, Fayek AR. 2011. Fuzzy reliability analyzer:
quantitative assessment of risk events in the construction
industry using fuzzy fault-tree analysis. J Const Eng
Manag. 137(4):294–302.
Aibinu AA, Odeyinka HA. 2006. Construction delays and
their causative factors in Nigeria. J Constr Eng Manag.
132(7):667–677.
Al-Bahar JF, Crandall KC. 1990. Systematic risk manage-
ment approach for construction projects. J Const Eng
Manag. 116(3):533–546.
Al-Momani AH. 2000. Construction delay: a quantitative
analysis. Int J Proj Manag. [Internet].18(1):51–59.
Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art-
icle/pii/S026378639800060X
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 11
Askari M, Shokrizadeh HR, Ghane N. 2014. A fuzzy AHP
model in risk ranking. Eur J Bus Manag. 6(4), 194–202.
Assaf SA, Al-Hejji S. 2006. Causes of delay in large con-
struction projects. Int J Proj Manag.
[Internet].24(4):349–357. Available from: http://www.sci-
encedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786305001262
Aziz RF. 2013. Ranking of delay factors in construction
projects after Egyptian revolution. Alex Eng J.
52(3):387–406. doi:10.1016/j.aej.2013.03.002
Challal A, Tkiouat M. (2012. Qualitative approach risk
period in construction projects. J Financ Risk Manag.
1(3):42–51.
Chan DW, Kumaraswamy MM. 1997. A comparative study
of causes of time overruns in Hong Kong construction
projects, Int J Proj Manag. 15(1):55–63.
Chen CT, Lin CT, Huang SF. 2006. A fuzzy approach for
supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain man-
agement. Int J Prod Econ. 102(2):289–301. doi:10.1016/j.
ijpe.2005.03.009
Choi H, Mahadevan S. 2008. Construction project risk
assessment using existing database and project-specific
information. J Const Eng Manag. 134(11):894–903.
Choudhry RM, Aslam MA, Hinze JW. 2014. Cost and
schedule risk analysis of bridge construction in Pakistan:
establishing risk guidelines. J Constr Eng Manag.
140(7):04014020.
Dey P. 2012. Project risk management using multiple crite-
ria decision-making technique and decision tree analysis:
a case study of Indian oil refinery. Prod Plan Control.
23(12):903–921.
Doloi H, Sawhney A, Iyer KC. 2012. Structural equation
model for investigating factors affecting delay in Indian
construction projects. Constr Manag Econ. [Internet].
30(10):869–884. Available from: doi:10.1080/01446193.
2012.717705
El-Sayegh SM, Mansour MH. 2015. Risk assessment and
allocation in highway construction projects in the UAE. J
Manag Eng. 31(6):431–438.
Fang D, Fong P, Li M. 2004. Risk assessment model of ten-
dering for Chinese building projects. J Const Eng Manag.
130(6):862–868.
Gładysz B, Skorupka D, Kuchta D, Duchaczek A. 2015.
Project risk time management: a proposed model and a
case study in the construction industry. Proc Comput
Sci. 64:24–31.
Gunduz M, Nielsen Y, Ozdemir M. 2013. Fuzzy assessment
model to estimate the probability of delay in Turkish
construction projects. J Manag Eng. 31(4):Table 4.
Hameed A, Woo S. 2007. Risk importance and allocation in
the Pakistan Construction Industry: a contractors’ per-
spective. KSCE J Civil Eng. 11(2):73–80. doi:10.1007/
BF02823850
Ismail I, Memon H, Rahman I. 2014. Expert opinion on
risk level for factors affecting time and cost overrun
along the project lifecycle in Malaysian Construction
Projects. Int J Const Technol Manag. 1(2):10–15.
Jaber F. 2015. Establishing risk management factors for
construction projects in Iraq. Int J Adv Res Eng Technol.
6(1):35–48.
Jain R. 1976. Decision-making in the presence of fuzzy
variable. IEEE Trans Syst Man and Cybrenetics.
6:698–703.
 12 G. MUNEESWARAN ET AL.
Jayasudha K, Vidivelli B. 2016. Analysis of major risks in
construction projects. ARPN J Eng Appl Sci.
11(11):6943–6950.
Jintanapakanont J, Ghosh S. 2004. Identifying and assessing
the critical risk factors in an underground rail project in
Thailand: a factor analysis approach. Int J Proj Manag.
22(8):633–643.
Kadry M, Osman H, Georgy M. 2017. Causes of construc-
tion delays in countries with high geopolitical risks. J
Constr Eng Manag. 143(2):1–11.
Kaming PF, Olomolaiye PO, Holt GD, Harris FC. 1997.
Factors influencing construction time and cost overruns
on high-rise projects in Indonesia. Constr Manag Econ.
[Internet].15(1):83–94. Available from: doi:10.1080/
014461997373132
Kangari R. 1995. Risk management perceptions and trends of
U.S. construction. J Const Eng Manag. 121(4):422–429.
Karim N, Rahman I, Memmon A, Jamil N, Azis A. 2012.
Significant risk factors in construction projects:
Contractor’s perception. In Humanities Science and
Engineering (CHUSER) 2012 IEEE Colloquium (pp.
347–350). Sabah, Malaysia: IEEE Proceedings.
Kometa ST, Olomolaiye PO, Harris FC. 1994. Attributes of
UK construction clients influencing project consultants’ per-
formance. Constr Manag Econ. [Internet]. 12(5):433–443.
Available from: doi:10.1080/01446199400000053
Lam KC, Wang D, Lee PTK, Tsang YT. 2007. Modelling
risk allocation decision in construction contracts. Int J
Proj Manag. 25(5):485–493. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.
11.005
Larsen J, Shen G, Lindhard S, Brunoe T. 2016. Factors
affecting schedule delay, cost overrun, and quality level
in public construction projects. J Manag Eng.
32(1):04015032.
Liu J, Zhao X, Yan P. 2016. Risk paths in international con-
struction projects: case study from Chinese contractors. J
Const Eng Manag 142(6):05016002.
Loosemore M, McCarthy C. 2008. Perceptions of contrac-
tual risk allocation in construction supply chains. J Prof
Issues Eng Educ Pract. 134(1):95–105.
Mulholland B, Christian J. 1999. Risk assessment in con-
struction schedules. J Const Eng Manag. 125(1):8–15.
Nasir D, McCabe B, Hartono L. 2003. Evaluating risk in
construction–schedule model (ERIC–S): construction
schedule risk model. J Const Eng Manag.
129(5):518–527.
Nejad AM, Mashinchi M. 2011. Ranking fuzzy numbers
based on the areas on the left and the right sides of fuzzy
number. Comput Math Appl. 61(2):431–442.
Odimabo O, Oduoza C. 2013. Risk assessment framework
for building construction projects’ in developing coun-
tries. Int J Const Eng Manag 2(5):143–154.
Roy B, Dasgupta R, Chaki N. 2015. A study on software
risk management strategies and mapping with SDLC.
Adv Comput Syst Secur. 396:121–138.
Sambasivan M, Soon YW. 2007. Causes and effects of
delays in Malaysian construction industry. Int J Proj
View publication stats
Manag. [Internet].25(5):517–526. Available from: http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263786306001700
Subramanyan H, Sawant PH, Bhatt V. 2012. Construction
project risk assessment: development of model based on
investigation of opinion of construction project experts
from India. J Const Eng Manag. 138(3):409–421.
Sun Y, Fang D, Wang S, Dai M, Lv X. 2008. Safety risk
identification and assessment for beijing olympic venues
construction. J Manag Eng. 24(1):40–47.
Tah JHM, Carr V. 2000. A proposal for construction pro-
ject risk assessment using fuzzy logic. Constr Manag
Econ. [Internet]. 18(4):491–500. Available from: doi:10.
1080/01446190050024905
Tah JHM, Carr V. 2001. Knowledge-based approach to
construction project risk management. J Comput Civil
Eng. 15(3):170–177.
Tang W, Qiang M, Duffield C, Young D, Lu Y. 2007. Risk
management in the chinese construction industry. J
Const Eng Manag. 133(12):944–956.
Thorani Y, Rao P, Shankar N. 2012. Ordering generalized
trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. Int J Contem Math Sci.
7(12):555–573.
Tipili LG, Ilyasu MS. 2014. Evaluating the impact of risk
factors on construction projects cost in Nigeria. Int J
Eng Sci. 3(6):10–15.
Tsai T, Yang M. 2010. Risk assessment of design-bid-build
and design-build building projects. J Operat Res Soc Jpn.
53(1):20–39.
Tran D, Mashford J, May R, Marlow D. 2012. Development
of a fuzzy risk ranking model for prioritizing manhole
inspection. J Comput Civil Eng. 26 (4):550–557.
Tripathi KK, Jha KN. 2018. An empirical study on factors
leading to the success of construction organizations in
India. Int J Constr Manag. [Internet]1–18. Available
from: doi:10.1080/15623599.2017.1423162
Wang M, Chou H. 2003. Risk allocation and risk handling
of highway projects in Taiwan. J Manag Eng.
19(2):60–68.
Wang S, Dulaimi F, Aguria M. 2004. Risk management
framework for construction projects in developing coun-
tries. Constr Manag Econ. 22(3):237–252.
Yang Z, Wang J. 2015. Use of fuzzy risk assessment in FMEA
of offshore engineering systems. Ocean Eng. 95(1):195–204.
Yang J, Wei P. 2010. Causes of delay in the planning and
design phases for construction projects. J Arch Eng.
16(2):80–83.
Yoon Y, Tamer Z, Hastak M. 2015. Protocol to enhance
profitability by managing risks in construction projects. J
Manag Eng. 31(5):170–177.
Zhou P, Redman S, Windon S. 2008. Case studies on risk
and opportunity at design stage of building projects in
Australia: focus on safety. Arc Eng Design Manag.
4(3–4):221–238.
Zou P, Chen Y, Chan T. 2010. Understanding and improv-
ing your risk management capability: assessment model
for construction organizations. J Const Eng Manag.
136(8):854–863.