Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management

The professionals perspective on the causes of project delay in the construction industry
George Agyekum-Mensah, Andrew David Knight,
Article information:
To cite this document:
George Agyekum-Mensah, Andrew David Knight, "The professionals perspective on the causes of project delay
in the construction industry", Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management , https://doi.org/10.1108/
ECAM-03-2016-0085
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-03-2016-0085
Downloaded on: 20 August 2017, At: 07:40 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 07:40 20 August 2017 (PT)

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:425905 []
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 professionals’ perspective on the causes of project
delay in the construction industry

Abstract

Purpose - Construction project delays are described as a universal problem, which has led to many
empirical studies. However, most of these studies were based on the rankings by respondents, and
they were rarely verified. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore professional perspectives
on the causes of delay in the construction industry, where there has been little explicit consideration
on this subject in recent decades.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 07:40 20 August 2017 (PT)

Design/methodology/approach - A critical literature review and a qualitative approach was

considered for a deeper and fresh understanding of the causes of delays, rather than recycling the
existing themes and the risk of a statistically biased approach. A total of forty one interviews were
undertaken which included the London Olympic 2012 project team.

Findings – Thirty-two themes were identified, which were categorised into fifteen categories of
causes of delay in the construction projects. Almost two thirds of the main themes are not ranked top
15 causes of delay. These include knowledge and competence shortage, poor commercial decisions,
unnecessary health and safety restrictions, poor risk management, and poor space and logistics
management.

Limitations - Due to the qualitative nature of the study, thus the findings might not be considered as
representative.

Originality/value - The findings provide consideration of the causes of delay in the construction
industry as seen by practitioners, which should provide guidance to enhance performance. The study
contributes to the better understanding of the causes of delays by using qualitative research strategy
which is limited in the construction management literature.

Keywords: Construction delays, construction management, planning, project management,

practitioners’ perspective and UK construction

INTRODUCTION
The construction industry globally has been faced with the criticisms of delays, which have
an extremely negative effect on construction projects. In the UK, the industry has received its
equal share of criticisms from Governmental organisations, academics and practitioners.
Sambasivan and Soon (2007), and Agyekum-Mensah et al. (2012) presented some delays
 observed in literature and it was established that more than 40% of projects globally
experience delays. Conlin and Retik (1997) claim 52% of projects in the UK overrun on time,
whilst a report from University of Bath conducted by Graves and Rowe (1999) indicated that
70% of the UK public projects exceeded their time estimates. Landmark projects such as
Wembley Stadium and the Scottish Parliament in this millennium have attracted a lot of
public debate on project delays. Some of which led to claims and litigations between parties.
At the beginning of the 21st century, a DETR (2000) report highlighted the problem of time
overrun in the UK construction industry. A follow-up UK Governmental study on the over-
cited Egan (1998) report concluded that the industry’s improvement was insignificant
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 07:40 20 August 2017 (PT)

(Wolstenholme, 2009). Mair (2014) claimed that 75% of UK council delay construction
projects while the UK National Audit Office (2001, p4) established that 70% of construction
project experience delay A similar report by National Audit Office (2010) established that
31% of PFI projects delay by a range of one to six months. This, therefore, suggested that
delay remains a prevailing challenge within the UK construction industry. In a report,
performance of PFI construction, the UK National Audit Office (2009) it was clearly
emphasised that “construction performance is central to achieving the Government’s delivery
of capital projects”. The importance of understanding and verifying the causes of delays has
become apparent after the global economic recession in 2008.

Despite the studies on the causes of delay in many countries, a search on causes of delay in
the UK construction literature found scarcely any. Surprisingly, a search on Association of
Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM), which is one of the largest construction
management research depositories in the UK, produced 573 results for ‘causes of delay, UK’
but none of them was directly a study in the UK in recent decades. An early study in the UK
on the causes of delays was that of Sullivan and Harris (1986). In this study, the authors
examined large construction projects in the UK where 19 causes were identified; of these
waiting for information, variation orders and ground problems were ranked highest.
However, the construction industry has moved on and there have been changes which include
the 2008 economic recession. Yet, delays still remain a cornerstone problem in the UK
construction industry (Wolstenholme, 2009), thus worth researching.

Most studies on the causes of delay found in literature are based on the rankings by
respondents (random participants), and they are rarely verified by practitioners (the people
involved). However to understand real life issues in specified industries, it is appropriate to
ask the people involved. Therefore, this study closes this gap in knowledge by qualitatively
 exploring the causes of delay in the UK construction industry in the post-recession era. There
are four main parts in this paper, the literature review, which establishes the present state of
knowledge; followed by the methods used for the study, the results, analysis and discussion
on main causes of delay, and conclusions drawn.

LITERATURE REVIEW

What is a Delay?

Many researchers have different definitions for ‘delay’; however, in this study delay is
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 07:40 20 August 2017 (PT)

defined simply as ‘the inability to meet the scheduled time’. Delays are classified into two
main types, excusable and non-excusable. By and large, excusable delays are those that are
understandable by the parties and non-excusable are the opposing type (Conlin and Retik,
1997). Trauner (2009) argues that there are two types of excusable delays; which are
compensable and non-compensable. Compensable delays are usually where the contractor is
reimbursed in time and cost. These are usually client initiated delays but the non-
compensable are the opposite. Construction project delays can be attributed to a variety of
reasons and could be initiated by any of the stakeholders on projects. Atkinson (1999) claims
that construction projects are continuously described as failing. Sweis et al., (2008) insist that
despite the advanced technology and project management techniques available to the
practitioners, construction projects experience delays.

Causes of Delay

Baldwin et al. (1971) is one of the early studies to clearly present the causes of delays in
construction in the USA. They identified 17 delay factors where the top five were weather,
labour supply, subcontractors, design changes, shop drawings, and foundation conditions.
This was followed with the study of Arditi et al. (1985) conducted in Turkey and 23 causes of
delay were found. Top on their findings were shortage of materials, difficulty in receiving
payments from agencies, contractor's difficulties to get loans and credit purchase, and
organisational characteristics. Then in the UK, the study of Sullivan and Harris (1986)
established 19 causes of delays, with waiting for information, variation orders and ground
problems ranked highest. Since then numerous researchers have examined the causes of
construction delays in various countries as shown in Tables 1 and 2. Among the studies,
Hamzah et al., (2011), Sweis et al. (2008) and Fallahnejad (2013) produced a critical review
on the causes of delays observed in literature. Hamazah et al. (2011), and Sambasivan and
 Soon (2007) concluded their critical review on causes of delay by identifying the main
causes; these include, poor planning, poor site management, financial issues, delay of
material delivery and management problems. Although Lim and Mohamed (2004) did
identify planning (project management) as one of the main problems in construction in
Malaysia, they ranked lack of experience, lack of site supervision and lack of appropriate
skills in this order as the main problems. Sweiss et al. (2008) believed that these main causes
can be grouped into three categories, which are, input factors (concerned with labour,
material and equipment), internal environment (contractor, owner and consultants) and
exogenous factors (weather and government regulations). Fallahnejad (2013) presented 19
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 07:40 20 August 2017 (PT)

study reviews including his study on causes of delays around the world. Although, literature
has indicated that delay is a universal issue within construction, empirical study in the UK on
the causes of delay in the 21st century is sparse (McCord et al., 2015). Sullivan and Harris
(1986) is one of the main studies in the UK on the causes of delay where large construction
projects were examined. A recent questionnaire survey conducted within the housing sector
in the Northern Ireland by McCord et al. (2015) identified deficiencies in site management,
ineffective communication strategies and a lack of coordination between key stakeholders
involved in the construction process as the key findings.

The questionnaire survey by Fallahnejad (2013 p. 143-145) concluded that the ten most
important causes of delay were “imported materials, unrealistic project duration, client-
related materials, land exploration, change order, contractor selection methods, payment to
contractor, obtaining permits, suppliers and contractor’s cash flow”. A similar questionnaire
survey conducted by Sambasivan and Soon (2007 p. 526) in Malaysia also concluded with
ten causes of delays. These were “contractors improper planning, contractor’s poor site
management, inadequate contractor’s experience, inadequate client’s finance and payments
for the work, problems with subcontractors, shortage of materials, labour supply, equipment
availability and failure, lack of communication between parties, and mistake during
construction stage”. From these studies, it can be inferred that inappropriate planning and
poor project management are significant causes of delay. Another study conducted in
Malaysia by Memon (2014) identified slightly different top factors from Sambasivan and
Soon (2007). Memon (2014) established the following as the top factors: frequent design
changes, change in the scope of the project, financial difficulties of owner,

delays in decisions making and unforeseen ground condition. The difference between the
findings of these two studies could arguably be the years the research was conducted. The
 study of Sambasivan and Soon was conducted in 2007, which was just before the global
recession and that of Memon was in 2014 after the recession.

Sepasgozar et al. (2015) argues that a key cause of delay is the continuous use of outdated
construction technologies. Hamzah et al., (2011) concluded that, the reduction of delay is not
only limited to the consideration of technical factors, but also to issues of project
management. Agykum-Mensah et al. (2012) and Hubbard (1990), among other researchers,
claim that many problems within construction are due to lack of effective project
management. Equally, Sweis et al. (2008) ascertain that there are major failings in the
traditional approaches to project delivery. Despite all the advances in project management
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 07:40 20 August 2017 (PT)

theory and practice, Hartman and Ashrafi (2004) claimed construction project success is still
below 40%. Shehu et al. (2014) claims delay in Malaysia is mainly associated with financial
problems by the contractor.

Sambasivan and Soon (2007) and Fallahnejad (2013) reviewed on causes of delays and
concluded that improper planning is the most likely cause of delay, followed by poor site
management. According to Sweis et al., (2008), responses from both consultants and clients
ranked poor planning as the main cause of delay. According to Conlin and Retik (1997),
construction schedules, regardless of type plays a vital part in managing the construction
process. They claim the schedule is vital in identifying, preparing, analysing or refuting delay
claims because they provide a specific medium for comparing and measuring time and
meaning. Furthermore, they claim that the construction schedule is significant when it is
applied to measure delays. Similarly study in Libya, Tumi et al. (2009) identified improper
planning, lack of effective communication, design errors, shortage of supply, slow decision
making and financial issues ranked highest. A review conducted by Memon (2014) identified
30 causes of delay. There are different causes of delay in literature which have not been
verified.

Therefore, in this study a critical review of 24 studies was conducted on the causes of delay
and 30 common causes were identified. Table 1 provides the top 15 established in the
existing literature as the causes of delay.

INSERT TABLE 1

Research methods used in Studies on Causes of Delay

Most researchers use surveys as the research method to investigate the causes of delay; for
example, Mansfield et al. (1994), and Sullivan and Harris (1986) presented the causes of
 delays in construction in Nigeria and the UK respectively. Table 2 presents studies observed
in literature in the 21st century on the causes of delay from different countries, which also
shows that the UK has not been covered. It is acknowledged that some books authors such as
Trauner (2009) have asserted their views on causes of delays, but Table 2 focuses on
empirical studies and/or peer reviewed publications.

INSERT TABLE 2

Table 2 shows that in the studies identified for causes of delays, survey is the dominant
approach used. Perhaps, this is because of the dominance of quantitative (survey) research in
construction management as a field of study (Knight and Ruddock, 2008). Using surveys in
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 07:40 20 August 2017 (PT)

this case, only allows the existing factors in literature to be revolved, thus, there is no new
understanding or verification of the problem. Dainty (2008) argues that this has encouraged a
convention of applying a “natural science” strategy to understand social phenomena. He
further established that fewer than 9% of papers published in Construction Management and
Economics Journal (up to vol. 24) used the qualitative method exclusively. However, it is
imperative that to understand the ‘real-world’ problem of why something occurs like, the
causes of delay, it is important to ask those involved in the project (Robson 2011, and
Seymour et al., 1998). This is consistent with this study, which is to explore the causes of
delay from the participants’ experience

RESEARCH DESIGN
In order to further explore the causes of delays, within a contemporary period of economic
austerity, and more specifically to understand professional perspective within this context, a
qualitative study was undertaken (Farrell, 2011). A qualitative approach was adopted for this
study for gathering rich data from which ideas are induced and the experience of the
participants is vital. This approach enabled the exploration of key themes, understanding and
attitudes of those who work within a project environment on a daily basis. Project Cases were
purposively selected within which interviews were undertaken as the main data collection
method. Proverbs and Gameson (2008) describe case study research as extremely applicable
to a project driven industry. Multiple case studies were used to explore the causes of delay,
which gave a deeper understanding of the subject under investigation (Bryman and Bell,
2011). There were closing interviews conducted with professionals subsequent to the case
studies. These interviews were intended to explore contrasting and comparative
understanding of the research subject and also to give a general perspective. Generally, critics
 describe this approach as methodologically weak; thus, the authors being aware of this
weakness put mitigation measures in place (predominantly using the recommendations of
these studies: Yin 2009, Easterby-Smith et al. 2012, Bryman and Bell 2011, Strauss and
Corbin 1998, Knight and Ruddock 2008, and Farrell 2016). These include robust research
design, where the data collection spans from July 2011 to April 2013. Although, majority of
the studies on causes of delays a adopt quantitative strategy which is contrary to this study’s
strategy, few studies such as Lim and Mohamed (2000) used a qualitative approached to
gather rich data on causes of delays in Malaysia, where they conducted 40 interviews.

In this study a total of 41 interviews were undertaken. This comprised 26 interviews

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 07:40 20 August 2017 (PT)

conducted within the four project case studies and an additional 15 with the general
purposively sampled participants (experienced practitioners). The case studies were selected
from predominately UK construction companies. Two of the case studies were notable main
contractors executing landmark projects in the UK, whilst one each was within subcontractor
and engineering settings. These cases were chosen as being representative of all sectors of the
UK construction industry. Fellows and Lui (2015) agree that case sampling is a vital part in
case study research; he however asserts that balance and variety are equally important to
strengthen findings. Three of the cases were based in central England, and the other one was
in East Lothian, Scotland. The case studies focus on main contractors’ views, thus one may
argue it is limited. Therefore, additional interviews were conducted with most of the main
stakeholders in construction projects. These included developers, consultants, clients and
contractors. The closing semi-structured interviews were conducted with senior members in
reputable organisations and landmark project members, which included the London 2012 and
Wembley Stadium. The participants were purposively selected, where criteria include,
participant should:

• senior manager in reputable organisation and/or on a project,

• have over 15years industrial experience and

• be academically and professionally qualified.

The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Content analysis was adopted
and the analysis was facilitated by the use of Nvivo software. The analysis is concerned with
interpreting the interviews rather than reducing the data to statistical counts. This is to retain
the richness of the interviews conducted with highly experience participants. The participants
were anonymously coded for unreserved analysis. The analyses of the case studies were cross
 discussed separately from the industrial interviews. The empirical themes grouped into larger
categories, which were later crossed discussed with the industrial interviews to identify the
similarities as well as differences. In total, 32 themes were identified which were grouped
into 15 main categories.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The Case Studies Interviews

The data collected from the four case study interviews were cross-discussed to establish the
similarities as well as differences. Analysis of the case study interviews suggested 30
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 07:40 20 August 2017 (PT)

empirical common themes as causes of delays which were grouped into 11 main categories
(see Table 3) against the 14 attributes and 8 themes gathered from the closing general
practitioners interview (see Table 4). In total, 15 main themes were identified in this study.
Individuals react to delays in different ways. For example, the project manager whose
responsibility is to deliver the project on schedule is suggested to be panicking, whilst the
cost manager is interested in the ‘blame game’. This is clearly expressed by the Cost Manager
who is a chartered surveyor with many years of experience.

“… again, looking at our interest so that we can pass on blame if it is a better term. If a
client is causing [the delay], we believe the client should recompense us for that. That might
be an extension of time, it might be acceleration or it might be anything”.

This participant further admits that the main problem that causes delay is late procurement of
subcontractors. However, he was quick to add that if there are weekly meetings these would,
perhaps, be eliminated. Therefore, he explains

“I have to admit that as a surveyor I don’t panic as the project manager panics. I accept as a
surveyor there will be areas that we can affect. If we are late in procuring subcontractors
that will have significant effect [on the project]. The weekly progress meetings are essential
because that allows the project manager to say I need somebody in the next two weeks to do
something”

This problem is shared with the designers of the case studies, who suggest that they did not
know when some drawings were needed on site. This problem of ‘blame game’ led to
 participants suggesting that liquidated damages should be levied against designers as with
subcontractors. The project manager said

“On this job we had the design and procurement programme and it is probably six months
behind. It has never been tracked therefore there was no need to put effort in to do it in the
first place. I think we have in the back of our minds knowing what we need to concentrate on
and doing it that way”.

The project manager in case study four says:

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 07:40 20 August 2017 (PT)

“I think another problem we have in reality is that we sign up to programme that is too tight
so we have very less capacity in our programme; therefore, any matter becomes delay rather
than becomes an issue they get resolved and of course the end results is delay. I think we are
too polite, too soft or whatever with a client to say NO we need more time”.

Alternatively, ‘poor commercial decisions’ and ‘poor space and logistics management’ were
suggested to be causes of delays. The most intriguing problem established in both is the issue
of Health and Safety. Some participants, especially, from the subcontractors deemed Health
and Safety as a problem to project management but it was interesting to note that this view is
also shared by a site manager, with a masters level education and significant experience. This
participant explained and later cited examples
“unnecessary Health and safety, even though it is good for the people, it can also cause delay
to the project in such a way that, even though there are no short cut to achieve our goals
there are some things that could have been done in an easier way but following the health
and safety regs it is assumed to be safe but it turns to delay the project” (Case study two, Site
Engineer)

The Project Lead in case study two disagrees and said “… lack of maintenance of that
environment out there so guys are not working efficiently”. This participant believes
maintaining a clean environment on site allows subcontractors to work more efficiently.
However, they do not refute the site managers claim that unnecessary health and safety
causes delays. In as much as the senior project manager stressed that Health and Safety is a
good thing for the project, he makes an additional point that “… Scaffolding takes time.
 Scaffolding is not normally built into a programme. On this job it takes a long time to put
scaffolding up”.

INSERT TABLE 3

The Closing Interviews - General Practitioners

Delays in construction as previously discussed could be initiated by any of the stakeholders

and a typical problem. The Senior Project Manager described delays as a common problem in
construction; however, the effect of delays on project participants varies especially clients
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 07:40 20 August 2017 (PT)

and contractors. This participant argues that:

“project slipping over its planned schedule is considered as a common problem in

construction projects. To the owner, delay means loss of revenue through lack of production
of facilities and rent-able space or a dependence on present facilities. In some cases, to the
contractor, delay means higher overhead costs because of longer work period, higher
material costs through inflation, and due to labour cost increases”.

The Director believes “… we sometimes talk about ‘delays’ which are not delays per se but
poor programming at the start of the project for not assessing the productivities realistically
etc.”. The Senior Project Manager believes the “… original contract duration [given by
project owner] being too short”. The Project Director emphasises this by asserting “I have
already said that insufficient planning is the main cause …”.Whilst, the Planning Manager
asserts, “… causes of delays could be scope creep, changes, lack of clarity or unclear brief”.

However, Programme Director believes delay is caused by a “…failure to undertake a

comprehensive assessment of the ground conditions”. “It could be insufficient detailing in
design or specification; it could be technical specification” was the response of the
contractor’s Managing Director. The Project Engineer from a consultancy background advise
that although despite this lack of assessment there are “…not enough contingency allowed to
deal with delays easily”.
 The Managing Director believes delays are caused by inappropriate resources allocation to
projects, which is arguably due to financial problem or shortage of resources. This participant
asserts

“very often from the contractors’ point of view, the contractors have more than one project
going on so it could be internal difficulties having to allocate the same resources to different
projects”

Some respondents suggest that the design changes could be due to lack of investigations such
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 07:40 20 August 2017 (PT)

as groundwork. The Senior Project Engineer, Planning Manager and Programme Director all
agree that unknown ground conditions or poor site investigation can cause delays, which is
consistent to literature although ranked 15 on the top causes of delay. However, the
Programme Director believes it is a “… failure to undertake a comprehensive assessment of
the ground conditions”. “It could be insufficient detailing in design or specification; it could
be technical specification” was the response of Managing Director. The former stresses on
lack of comprehensive assessment conducted at the preconstruction stage while the latter
adds from a design perspective. These themes are ranked 5 and 7 respectively in table 1.The
Project Engineer from a consultancy background advise that despite this lack of assessment
detailed site investigations there are “… not enough contingency allowed to deal with delays
easily”.

The Project Engineer believes that there is not enough allowance of buffer in the programme
to cater for some unforeseen delays. Other participants’ suggest that lack of experience is
among the causes of delays to construction projects. This was clearly stated by the Senior
Project Manager as he stressed on the “… inadequate experience of consultants, this could
apply to contractor depending on the type of contract or procurement”. Lack of experience
of the individuals or team is not emphasised enough literature as it is not in the top 15 causes
of delay as presented in Table 1; however, few study such as Lim and Mohamed (2004)
ranked within the top 10 causes of delay. In addition, the Project Engineer stated:

“well, the most common problem is the time overrun. In my experience this begins from the
start of the project, when I say the start of the project, I mean on site, the project start on site
with insufficient information and with decisions yet to be taken so it starts with a built in
 delay and the delay keep [getting] carried over to the next person and to the next person to
the next person and finally the delays keep accumulating”. This participant asserts on
information flow and delay in decision making.

In the analysis of the closing practitioners’ interviews, 14 attributes were identified as the
common causes of delay. These attributes were grouped into eight themes. These themes are
consistent across a collection of studies but not in a single study. Table 4 presents the results
of general practitioners perspective on the causes of delay.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 07:40 20 August 2017 (PT)

INSERT TABLE 4

The Synthesis - Interviews

The study established 32 causes of delays; however, insufficient or poor planning and
management problems were prevalent. This supplants the waiting for information, variation
order, and ground problems identified 30 years ago by Sullivan and Harris (1986) in the UK.
Again, McCord et al. (2015) identified deficiencies in site management, ineffective
communication strategies and a lack of coordination between key stakeholders. In a broader
view, the findings of this study are an extension to literature as it establishes ‘the real world’
causes of delay rather than the revolving themes gathered in literature. For example, it was
established that poor commercial decisions, and health and safety are claimed to be major
causes of delays to construction projects. In addition, practitioners suggest underestimating
the complexity of projects equally causes delays. These themes, including unclear initial
project objectives and scope creep, are sparsely discussed in construction management
literature as causes of delays this millennium. It was noted that scope creep was a problem
despite the granting of an extension of time, the public, and most researchers, are only
interested in the initial proposed completion date. Thus any overrun to the original stipulated
completion date is classified as a delay. Surprisingly poor workmanship and lack of materials
which has been discussed in most studies from developing countries, is not raised by
participants of this study, rather the emphasis was on management experiences and
competences. Other causes of delay such as weather and slowness in approval which are
ranked among the top were not suggested by participants in this study.
 Another significant finding that has not been given much attention in previous causes of
delay literature is unnecessary health and safety requirements, and the issue of experience,
knowledge and competence of the individual and the team. Practitioners assert that
information flow is equally a major cause of delay. The findings of the case studies and the
closing general practitioners interviews complement each other, which is an indicative of the
industrial perspective of causes of delay in the UK construction industry. The main themes
presented in Table 5 below, which shows the 15 main categorises of causes of delay. These
themes were compared to the top 15 ranked in existing literature as presented in Table 1. It
was found that almost two thirds of the themes are not among not cited in the top 15 in
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 07:40 20 August 2017 (PT)

literature. These findings could be interpreted in two folds. First, the causes of delays could
be specific to a country and/or era but not transferable from one country/region or era to
another. Secondly, it could be argued that the generic lists of causes of delays in literature are
not verified, thus, there are no new themes found.

INSERT TABLE 5

CONCLUSIONS
The authors explored and verified the causes of delay from professionals’ perspective in the
post 2010s era in the construction industry as project delays remain one of the biggest
challenges. The dominance of quantitative strategy in examining causes of delay does not
allow deeper or fresh insight, is not suitable to understand ‘real life’. It is argued that
operational problems such as causes of delay could be specific to a country and/or era. It is
therefore important that the practitioners’ experiences were explored rather than arguably
recycling other attributes from existing studies, from different countries, with the potential for
statistically biased analysis. The study contributes to the better understanding of the causes of
delays by using qualitative research strategy which is limited in the construction management
literature.

Although two separate approaches (case study interviews and general interviews) were
undertaken, the results complement each other. These represent the common causes of delay
in the construction industry. Thirty-two empirical attributes were identified, which were
grouped into fifteen main themes. There were obviously themes that were consistent with
existing quantitative studies even from different countries, thus verified. Certain themes such
 as insufficient planning, poor project management, unclear initial project objectives,
communication and inappropriate resource management are consistent with other studies and
could be described as universal problems. However, themes including unnecessary health and
safety requirements, scope creep, soft management (communication, experience, knowledge
and competence), and poor commercial decisions are sparsely discussed in literature.

These findings of the study immensely benefit both academics and practitioners as the main
causes of construction delay in the 2010s (post-recession). This enables practitioners to
mitigate construction delays to enhance performance and also guide future research for
academics. This study is an empirical investigation into the causes of delay in the 21st
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 07:40 20 August 2017 (PT)

century and it represents an important edition to the body of knowledge within the subject
area.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to sincerely thank the case study companies and the interviewees for
their valuable contributions and support to this study.

REFERENCES
Abd El-Razek, M. E., Bassioni, H. A., and Mobarak, A. M., (2008). Causes of delay in building
construction project in Egypt, Journal of Constr. Enginr. and Management. 134, 831-841

Agyekum-Mensah, G., Knight, A., and Pasquire, C., (2012). Adaption of Structured Analysis Design
Techniques methodology for construction project planning, In Smith S.D (Ed) Procs. 28th
Annual ARCOM conference, 3-5 September 2012, Edinburgh, UK, 1055-1065

Al‐Kharashi, A., and Skitmore, M,. (2009). Causes of delays in Saudi Arabian public sector
construction projects, Construction Management and Economics, 27(1), 3-23

Al-Momani, A. H., (2000). Construction delay: a quantitative analysis, International Journal of

Project Management, 18, 51-59

Arditi, D., Akan, G. T., and Gurdamar, S., (1985). Reasons for Delays in Public Projects in Turkey.
Construction Management and Economics. 3(2), 171-181

Assaf, S. A., and Al-Hejji, S., (2006). Causes of delay in large construction projects, International
Journal of Project Management, 24, 349-357

Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM) search at

http://www.arcom.ac.uk/search.php accessed on 17/10/2013
 Atkinson, R., (1999). Project Management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a
phenomenon, it’s [its] time to accept other success criteria; International Journal of Project
Management, 17(6), 337-342

Baldwin, J. R., Manthei, J. M., Rothbart, H., & Harris, R. B. (1971). Causes of delay in the
construction industry. Journal of the Construction Engrg. Division, 97(2), 177-187.

Bryman, A., and Bell, E., (2011). Business Research Methods, 3rd ed, Oxford Uni. Press

Colin, J., and Retik, A., (1997). The applicability of project management software and advanced IT
techniques in construction delays mitigation, International Journal of Project Management,
15, 107-120
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 07:40 20 August 2017 (PT)

Collins, J., and Hussey, R., (2009). Business Research: A practical guide for undergraduate and
postgraduate students. 3rd ed., Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, UK

Dainty, A. (2008). In Knight, A. and Ruddock, L. ed.; Advance Research Method in Built
Environment; Wiley- Blackwell, Oxford. pg 1-12.

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) (2000). Performance indicators
show improvement, Construction Monitor, available at
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/16323/file1644
1.pdf accessed on 29/10/2013

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., and Jackson, P., (2012). Management Research, 4th ed., SAGE
Publication, London

Egan, J., (1998). Rethinking Construction: The Report of the Construction Task Force, Department of
Environment, Transport and Regions, London.

Enshassi, A., Al-Najjar, J., And Kumaraswamy, M., (2009). Delays and cost overruns in the
construction projects in the Gaza Strip. Journal of Financial Management of Property and
Construction, 14 (2), 126-151

Fallahnejad, M. H., (2013). Delay causes in Iran gas pipeline projects. International Journal of
Project Management, 136, 136-146

Faridi, A. S., and El‐Sayegh, S. M. (2006). Significant factors causing delay in the UAE construction
industry. Construction Management and Economics, 24(11), 1167-1176.

Farrell, P., Sherratt, F. and Richardson, A. (2016). Writing a Built Environment Dissertation and
Projects, 2nd edition, Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, UK

Fellows, R. and Liu, A. (2015). Research Methods for Construction, 4th ed., Wiley-Blackwell, West
Sussex, UK.
 Frimpong, Y., Oluwoye, J., and Crawford, L., (2003). Causes of delays and cost overruns in
construction of groundwater projects in developing countries: Ghana as a case study,
International Journal of project Management, 2, 321-326.

Fugar, F. D. K., and Agyekwah-Baah, A. B., (2010). Delays in building construction project in
Ghana, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 10, 103-116

Graves, A., and Rowe, D., (1999). Benchmarking the Government Client. Construction the Best
Government Client, HM Treasury Report.

Hamzah, N., et al., (2011). Cause of construction delay – Theoretical Framework, Procedia
Engineering, 20, 490 – 495.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 07:40 20 August 2017 (PT)

Han, S. H., et al., (2009). Analysing schedule delay of mega project: lesson learned from Korea Train
Express. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 56, 243-425.

Hartman, F. and Ashrafi, R., (2004). Development of the SMARTTM Project Planning framework,
International Journal of Project Management, vol. 22, pg 499-510

Hubbard, D. G., (1990). Successful utility project management from lessons learned; Project
Management Journal, vol. 21, no. 3, pg 19-23.

Knight, A. and Ruddock, L., (2008). Advance Research Method in Built Environment; Wiley-
Blackwell, Oxford

Le-Hoai, L., Dai Lee, Y., and Lee, J. Y., (2008). Delay and cost overruns in Vietnam large
construction projects: a comparison with other selected countries. KSCE Journal of Civil
Engineering, 12(6), 367-377.

Lim, C. S., and Mohamed, M. Z., (2000). An exploratory study into recurring construction problems.
International Journal of Project Management, 18, 267-273

Lo, T. Y., Fung, I. W. and Tung, K. C (2006). Construction delays in Hong Kong civil engineering
projects, Journal of Construction Eng. and Management, 132, 636-649

Long, N. D., et al., (2004). Large Construction projects in developing countries: a case study from
Vietnam. Int. Journal of Project Management, 22, 553-561.

Mahamid, I., Bruland, A. and Dmaidi, N., (2012). Causes of Delay in Road Construction Project,
Journal Management Eng., 28(3), 300-310

Mair, L. (2014). Almost 75% of council cancel or delay construction projects, Architect Journal,
available athttp://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/almost-75-of-councils-cancel-or-delay-
construction-projects/8674168.article, accessed on 27/05/2016
 Mansfield, N. R., Ugwu O., and Doran, T., (1994). Causes of delays and cost overruns in Nigerian
construction projects, “Int. Journal of Project Management”,12(4), 254-260

McCord. J. et al. (2015). Understanding delays in housing construction: evidence from Northern
Ireland, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 20(3), 286 - 319

Memon, A. H. (2014). Contractor perspective on time overruns factors in Malaysian construction

projects, International Journal of Science, Environment and Technology, 3(3), 1184 – 1192

Odeh, A. M., and Battaineh, H. T., (2002). Causes of construction delay: traditional contracts,
“International Journal of Project Management”, 20, 67-73

Robson, C. (2011). Real world research: a resource for users of social research methods in applied
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 07:40 20 August 2017 (PT)

settings, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex, UK

Sambasivan, M., and Soon, Y. W., (2007). Causes and effects of delays in Malaysian construction
industry; International Journal of Project Management. 25, 517-526

Sepasgozar S. M. E., Razkenari, M. A., and Barati, K., (2015). The Importance of New Technology
for Delay Mitigation in Construction Projects, American Journal of Civil Engineering and
Architecture, 3(1), 15-20

Seymour, D., Crook, D. and Rooke, J. (1998). The role of theory in construction management: reply
to Runeson; Construction Management and Economics, 16,109-112

Shehu, Z., Endut, I. R., and Akintoye, A., (2014). Factors contributing to project time and hence cost
overrun in the Malaysian construction industry, Journal of Financial Management of Property
and Construction, 19(1), 55-75

Strauss, A., and Corbin, J., (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed. SAGE Publication,
California, USA.

Stumpf, G. (2000). Schedule delay analysis. Cost Engineering Journal, 42 (7), 32-43

Sullivan, A., & Harris, F. C. (1986). Delays on large construction projects. International Journal of
operations & production management, 6(1), 25-33.

Sweis, G. et al., (2008). Delays in construction projects: the case of Jordan, “International Journal of
Project Management”, 26, 665–674.

Toor, S. U. R. and Ogunlana, S. O., (2008). Problems causing delays in major construction projects in
Thailand. Construction Management and Economics, 26(4), 395-408.

Trauner, T. J., (2009). Construction Delays. 2nd ed. Elsevier Butherworth-Heinemann, Burlington,
USA
 Tumi, S. A. H., Omran, A., and Pakir, A. H. K. (2009). Causes of delay in construction industry in
Libya. In The International Conference on Economics and Administration, 265-272.

Wolstenholme, A., (2009). Never Waste a good crisis: A review of Rethink Construction and thoughts
for our future. Construction Excellence, London.

Yin, R. K., (2009). Case Study Research Design and Methods, 4th edition, Sage Publication Inc.,
Thousand Oaks, California, USA
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 07:40 20 August 2017 (PT)
 Table 1: Top 15 Causes of Delay observed in Construction Literature

Item Common causes of delay Raking based on

occurrences

1 Inadequate planning 1

2 Finance and payment 2

3 Slow in Approving 3

4 Variation =3

5 Ground condition
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 07:40 20 August 2017 (PT)

6 Labour supply, and subcontractors 5

7 Design changes, =5

8 Material shortage, =5

9 Manufactured and imported items =5

10 Site Management =5

11 Weather, 6

12 Fluctuation =6

13 Construction mistake =6

14 Contractors experience =6

15 Contingency or unforeseen =6
 Table 2: Studies on Causes of Delay in Construction in 21st Century observed in Literature

Author(s) Country of Study Method used

Al-Momani (2000) Jordan Survey
Lim and Mohamed (2000) Malaysia Case Study (interviews)
Stumpf (2000) General Literature Review
Odeh and Battaineh (2002) Jordan Survey
Frimpong et al (2003) Ghana Survey
Long et al. (2004) Vietnam Questionnaire
Assaf and Al-Hejji (2006) Saudi Arabia Survey
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 07:40 20 August 2017 (PT)

Faridi et al. (2006) UAE Survey

Lo et al. (2006) Hong Kong Survey
Sambasivan and Soon (2007) Malaysia Survey
Abd El-Razak et al. (2008) Egypt Survey (piloted Semi
Structured)
Le-Hoai et al. (2008) Vietnam Survey
Sweiss et al. (2008) Jordan, Middle East Survey
Toor and Ogunlana (2008) Thailand Case Study (questionnaire
and interviews)
Al‐Kharashi and Skitmore (2009) Saudi Arabia Survey
Enshassi et al. (2009) Gaza Strip Survey
Han et al. (2009) Korea Survey
Tumi et al. (2009) Libya Survey
Fugar and Agyekwah-Buah (2010) Ghana Survey
Hamzah et al (2011) General Literature Review
Mahamid et al. (2012) West Bank, Palestine Survey
Doloi et al. (2012) India Questionnaire
Fallahnejad (2013) Iran Survey
Memon (2014) Malaysia Survey
Shehu et al. (2014) Malaysia Survey
McCord et al. (2015) Northern Ireland Survey
 Table 3: The Causes of Delays – Case Study participants’ perspective

Attributes Themes

Game playing for more money Poor Commercial Decisions

Underestimating the complexity of the project

Professional Unassertive

Insufficient Design details Design Problems

Buildability

Insufficient Planning Insufficient Project Planning

Addition of items from the planning
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 07:40 20 August 2017 (PT)

Tight Programme

Missing activities during planning

Lack of contingency in duration

Lack of management of the tasks interface Poor Monitoring and Control

Poor management of labour Logistic Problems

Variations or Changes Scope Creep & Unclear

Scope creep project Requirements

Unclear project requirements

Financial problems Financial Problems

Cost Cutting (Less resources, smaller site
office and less site management)

Improper risks transfer Inappropriate Risks Transfer

Improper risk mitigation & Mitigation, and Unforeseen

Unexpected problem (inc. weather, winds, Circumstance
asbestos and ground problems)

Unexpected problems are encountered (e.g.
discovering services when excavating)

Inexperience and incompetence Knowledge, Experience and

Lack of Knowledge Competence

Knowledge of alternative construction
methodologies

The quality of the individuals

Health and Safety Health & Safety

Late procurement of materials Poor Resource Management

Lack of Resources

Lack of Space Poor Space and Logistic

Logistic Problems Management
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 07:40 20 August 2017 (PT)
 Table 4: Causes of delays - the results from the general practitioners perspective

Attributes Main themes

Insufficient Project Planning
Insufficient planning

Unrealistic Deadlines and Deliverables

Poor Information flow Poor information flow and

Improper Communication communication

Poor Management

Inappropriate co-ordination of team
members
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 07:40 20 August 2017 (PT)

Ineffective project management

Poor Performance

Poor Risk Management

Resource Problems

Payment and contractor Finance
Financial Problems
Problems

Unclear Project Objectives/scope Unclear Project Objectives/scope

Scope Creep Scope Creep

Lack of Detail Design and Design
Design problems
Changes

Unforeseen Circumstances Unforeseen Circumstances

Lack of Experience and Incompetence Lack of experience and incompetence
 Table 5: The main categorises - Practitioners perspective

Main Categorises The top 15 established in

literature

Insufficient planning Y

Poor information flow and
N
communication

Poor commercial decisions N

Ineffective project management Y

Poor monitoring and control Y
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE At 07:40 20 August 2017 (PT)

Financial problems Y

Unclear project objectives/scope N

Design problems Y

Unforeseen circumstances Y

Scope Creep N

Inappropriate risks transfer &
N
mitigation

Lack of knowledge, experience and
Y
competence

Health & Safety restrictions N

Poor resource management N

Poor space and logistic management N

Poor application of construction

N
methods