Chapter One: Introduction
1.1 Background
The construction industry is a significant contributor to the economic growth and development of
many countries. This is because it is linked to other industries in many ways and it provided the
infrastructure that is required to operate other industries. Because of its impact on the general
economy, its sustainable development is therefore, important (Durdyev and Ismail, 2016).
Construction is always related to the political, economic, social and legal framework of a nation.
It is difficult for construction to take place in a weak economy. It is also difficult for construction
to thrive in the midst of political and social instability. Where construction is thriving, it can
stimulate the growth of other sectors. It is therefore important to improve the efficiency of the
construction industry in terms of cost and time efficiency.
Construction projects are however encountered by both challenges and opportunities.
Inconsistency in the performance of construction projects, which results from cost and time
performance, is posing a challenge to the construction industry (Durdyev, Omarov and Ismail,
2017). The identification and management of risk can be an elusive endeavor. When risks
become reality they could cause disruption of a project and lead to unexpected higher costs. To
avoid these pitfalls it is necessary to identify, control and monitor these risks (Jones, 2017).
Apart from cost and quality, time performance is considered as a very significant aspect of the
lifecycle of the construction project and is a major determinant of the project’s success. Despite
its evident significance most construction projects face delays in their schedules which makes it a
widely acknowledged problem in the industry (Durdyev, Omarov and Ismail, 2017).
Delay in project management can be defined as when a project takes more time than is agreed
on by the parties involved, through their contract (Assaf and Al-Hejji, 2006). In construction,
delay sometimes occurs, leading to revenue loss to the owner because of the lack of production
facilities or because of dependence on current facilities. It could also result in higher overhead
costs, to the contractor, because of the increased length of time, which results in higher cost of
material, because of inflation and increase in labor cost (Shahsavand, Marefat and Parchamijalal,
2018).
Projects are considered as being efficient when they are completed on time. However the process
of construction is subject to many factors which are unpredictable and could result in delays.
These factors could include performance factors, environmental factors, resources availability
and relationship factors. For this reason it is rare that a project gets completed in the exact
specified time (Shahsavand et al., 2018).
The completion of a project within the time agreed between the parties involved is a critical
factor in the success of the project. Most projects, however, encounter delays in schedules which
has become a major problem in construction projects all over the world (Durdyev et al., 2017).
Delays in construction project completion time may result in additional cost which may result in
stalling of projects and/or severe disputes between the parties involved.
The success of any construction projects depends on whether it is accomplished before project
schedule and within the stipulated budget. The impact of delays affect time, cost, quality and
safety which are key controlling features (Doloi et al., 2012). The main impacts of delays in the
construction industry are time and cost overrun, disputes, adjudication and litigation (Gerdezi et
al., 2014). Understanding the resons for delays is, therefore, crucial for ensuring the profitability
of construction projects. Delay problems have been identified as factors that can affect the
performance of a construction company and ultimately the economy of the whole country
(Marzouk and Rasas, 2014).
One of the main aims of contractors in the construction industry is to increase their gain for the
purpose of market growth. In order to realize this it is important for contractors to be aware and
specific about the factors that influence the project’s success and be able to estimate the effects
before they bid for the projects. Delay in a projects implies that the project will not be completed
within the time agreed upon in the contract. The schedule of a construction project therefore
plays a very important role in project management because of its influence on the success of the
project (Abdullah et al., 2010).
Hong Kong has a rich and diverse heritage. Much of its historic fabric has been left intact over
years of colonial rule as well as revolutionary wars. However Hong Kong has been accused of
being notorious for putting economic and infrastructure development ahead to the preservation of
heritage (Tsui and Yau, 2016). This economic and infrastructural boom led to very faint traces of
Hong Kong’s historic fabric. Because of its limited space, historic buildings were found to stand
in the way of great financial gain that was being promised by the high price of land. The weak
heritage consciousness and laws that protect heritage buildings has led to almost complete
erasure of Hong Kong’s physical memory of its past (Wong, 2013).
The people of Hong Kong have become more aware of their Heritage in Historic buildings. The
Government of Hong Kong has launched the Revitalizing Historic Buildings through Partnership
Scheme for the purpose of preservation of public buildings and promoting the participation of the
public in conservation. The scheme encourages non-governmental Organizations to reuse
government-owned buildings. These organizations are allowed to apply for the use of these
buildings and to run social enterprises in these buildings (Commissioner for Heritage, 2017). The
government of Hong Kong has approached conservation of privately owned buildings in various
ways. This initiative is culturally, historical and architecturally valuable. The government
declares a building as a monument after seeking for the owner’s consent. However this may vary
from case to case. The government could also acquire property rights or compensate the owner
for buildable area with other land for the purpose of preserving the building (Commissioner for
Heritage, 2017).
The appreciation of heritage, in Hong Kong, has been increasing. The enactment of the Antiques
and Monuments Ordinances in 1976 and the establishment of the office of Commissioner for
Heritage provided a policy umbrella that promoted initiatives that acted as a point of contact.
Since then the appreciation of heritage has been gaining momentum and people have begun
showing willingness to preserve and revitalize these historic buildings (Tsui and Yau, 2016).
The HKSAR Government (HKSARG) has set up few parties for managing antiquities and
monuments in Hong Kong. Parties include Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB), Antiquities and
Monuments Office (AMO) and Commissioner for Heritage’s Office (CHO). One of the major
responsibilities of AMO is assessing and evaluating HBs in order to provide information to AAB
for grading of HBs (Antiquities and Monuments Office, 2017).
Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) is required to conduct for new capital works projects in the
project planning stage (Antiquities and Monuments Office, 2017). HIA report provides
information to projects on their impact of HBs or archeological significance. Therefore, during
project planning, HIA is a critical item which may affect the development of HBs. HIA report
will be used for analyzing its impact on the project performance.
Most of the revitalization efforts for historic buildings in Hong Kong is under the responsibility
of the government. The concerted effort by the government not only to preserve historic
buildings, but also to put them into proper use is encountered with numerous challenges. While
the Revitalizing Historic Buildings Through Partnership scheme is offering a new lease of life
for some old premises, revitalization projects are getting caught in between financial viability
and heritage preservation (Tsui and Yau, 2016). The management of these schemes is
continually finding itself caught in between sustainability and accountability. It is becoming
increasingly important that revitalized projects get up and running by themselves, without
relying on government subsidies.
1.2 Problem Statement
Conservation has received more attention from the public in the recent years, it gives influence to
the government for making decision on heritage conservation policy (Yung & Chan, 2011). The
Development Bureau (DB) has introduced Revitalization Scheme to the public, where
government-owned historic buildings (HBs) will be preserved and re-used by non-profit-making
organizations (NPOs). There are 5 batches of the scheme. From each batch, 4 to 7 HBs will be
selected for revitalization purpose.
According to the progress of Batch I & II, works have completed. However, from Table 1.1,
compare to the anticipated project commissioning time, a majority of the projects are delayed for
more than 1 year.
Table 1.1 Summary of the Project Progress of Batch 1 & Batch 2 under Revitalization Scheme
run by the DB. (Source: Revitalising Historic Buildings through Partnership Scheme
(Commissioner for Heritage’s Office, 2017) & Progress on Batch I & Batch II of the
Revitalisation Scheme (Commissioner for Heritage’s Office, 2018))
Historic Building Name of Project
Project Anticipated
Commissioning
Time
Project Actual
Commissioning
Time
Former North
Kowloon Magistracy
Savannah College of
Art and Design
(Hong Kong)
Sep 2010 Sep 2010
Old Tai O Police
Station Tai O Heritage Hotel Q1 2012 Mar 2012
Lui Seng Chun
Hong Kong Baptist
University School of
Chinese Medicine –
Lui Seng Chun
Q2 2012 Apr 2012
Former Lai Chi Kok
Hospital
Jao Tsung-I
Academy Q2 2012 Feb 2014
Fong Yuen Study
Hall
The Yuen Yuen
Institute “Fong Yuen
Study Hall” Tourism
and Chinese Cultural
Centre cum Ma Wan
Residents Museum
Q2 2012 Mar 2013
Mei Ho House YHA Mei Ho House
Youth Hostel Q4 2012 Oct 2013
Old Tai Po Police
Station
The Green Hub for
Sustainable Living Q1 2014 Aug 2015
Stone Houses Stone Houses Family
Garden Q1 2014 Oct 2015
Blue House Cluster Viva Blue House Q4 2014
May 2016 (Yellow
House & Orange
House)
Sep 2017 (Blue
House)
The delay of project commissioning time would increase the capital cost and affect operation of
NPOs & social benefit.
Some of the important causes of delay are related to interference of the owner, performance of
the contractor and planning and design of the project and inadequate financing. While most
studies have investigated the causes of delays in construction project, revitalization schemes
have unique characteristics that provide challenges that may not be similar to ordinary
construction projects. This study therefore seeks to determine the major causes of delays in
revitalization projects.
1.3 Objectives
The main objective of this study is to determine the causes of delay in revitalization projects in
Hong Kong. The specific objectives are;
1. To determine the effect of client factors on delay in revitalization projects in Hong Kong.
2. To find out how contractor factors influences delay in revitalization projects in Hong
Kong.
3. To examine the effect of consultant factors on delay in revitalization projects in Hong
Kong.
1.4 Significance of the study
With the modernization of the society and the increased importance placed on the financial
viability of construction projects over their historical heritage, the revitalization of historical
buildings has been facing numerous challenges. One of the most notable challenges has been the
delay in commissioning of the projects which has been found to result in economic losses due to
increased overhead costs and delay in the delivery of social benefits of the projects. It is
therefore important to determine some of the factors that contribute to delays in commissioning
of revitalization projects for the purpose of enabling the revitalization to deliver maximum
benefits and ensure sustainability.
This study is therefore important to policy makers and government agencies involved in the
revitalization of heritage buildings as it will provide recommendations and useful insight into the
causes of delays in commissioning of these projects. More insight into these causes will provide
better performance of the projects and in both time and cost saving.
This study will also be of importance to the residents of Hong Kong who will benefit from the
implementation of the recommendations as they will lead to better delivery of revitalization
projects. Since the residents, being taxpayers, are the major financiers of these projects, better
project delivery will ensure better use of their taxes. The residents will also benefit from better
preservation of their heritage and physical history which will be made available for posterity.
The study will also be of importance to researchers and scholars in the field of study as they will
benefit from the information provided and the insight gained as it will enable them make further
progress in their study. They will also benefit from the research gaps as they will provide field
for further study.
Chapter Two: Literature Review
2.1 Theoretical Review
This study is underpinned by four distinct theories that help to explain the arguments of the
researcher. These are Organizational Theory, Resource-based theory, financial distress theory
and agency theory.
2.1.1 Organizational Theory
This theory focuses on the social organizations and the relationships they have with the
environment in which they exist (Daft, 2008). This theory evolved for the purpose of achieving
effectiveness in industries and gives rationality to bureaucracy. According to the theory the
process of making decisions involves a number of steps when making choices. According to
Shukla (2008) the process of making decisions is an opportunity to change the decision itself.
Organizations are made up of working units within the organization. Each of these units has a
defined product. Because of the dependence of each of these groups to produce a common output
it becomes difficult for organizations to produce accelerated change and deal with immediate
demands (Zetterquist et al., 2011). For this reason, the decision-making process in organizations
requires time and resources for it to result in solutions that add value to the organization.
Delays are therefore inevitable because making sense out of organizations is difficult and
demands the use of various perspectives and wide knowledge to be able to incorporate a wide
range of decisions and plans without delaying operations.
2.1.2 Agency Theory
This theory focuses on contractual conflicts. Conflict of interest between partners who are in
contract arises because of different interests. These con flicts may arise when either one or both
of the contracting partners engage in actions or behavior that is against the interest of the other.
Agency theory, therefore describes the relationship between the agent (Contractor) and the
principle (Client) where the agent is obligated to fulfill certain demands of the principle (Gossy,
2008). The relationship between the agent and the principle is based on explicit or implicit
contract which describes the relationship between the two who are either seeking to be involved
or are already involved in collaborative actions.
The success of every construction project relies majorly on god communication between the key
players involved in the project. One of the key components of communication is the sharing of
critical information between the project participants. One of the most common risks in projects,
including construction projects, is poor communication (Ceric, 2003). It is often assumed that all
the involved parties will cooperate and share relevant information for the purpose of achieving
the goals of the project. However, in actual sense, projects participants usually have their own
interests, which could be a potential source of conflict. This situation is usually referred to as the
principal-agent problem, and refers to the situation where either one of the two players has better
information than the other.
In construction projects, the project owner/ client is the principal while the contractor is the agent
(Turner and Müller, 2004). In the principal-agent relationship, there is a delegation of tasks
where the principal (Owner/ client) relies on the agent (Contractor/ manager) to carry out project
tasks on behalf of the principal (Müller and Turner, 2005). One of the common assumptions is
that the agent will try to gain as much benefit as possible, even if it causes mpore damage to the
client (Scheig, 2008). The principal-agent theory contends that the principal-agent problem is
characterized by various issues that characteristic of the principal-agent relationship. These
issues include selection of areas of interest by agent, risk of moral hazard and agent holding up to
the principal.
2.1.3 Financial Distress Theory
This theory focuses on the different factors that may lead to a decline in the performance of a
firm (Brigham and Ehrhardt, 2013). Financial distress occurs when an organization is unable to
pay its financial obligations in time (Beaver et al., 2011). The assessment of the probability of an
organization entering into distress is important as it determines the payout distribution of an
investment. According to Finnerty (2013) since the financing of an organization and its
investment decisions are separate and independent, it is important to assess the possibility of
financial distress because overreliance on debt and equity may result in reduction of a firms
leverage on cost.
2.1.4 Resource Based Theory
The resource based theory is aimed at understanding how firms can gain competitive advantage
by applying the resources that are at their disposal (Kor and Mahooney, 2004). This theory
focuses on strategies that can be used by a firm to gain and enhance its competitive advantage.
Labor issues are critical to the success of firms. Planning for labor for a project is a complex task
because having inappropriate skills for the tasks required of the project could have adverse
consequences for the project’s outcome. The success of a project therefor requires having the
ability to determine and source for the right skills that are required to perform the activities of the
project (Kor and Mahooney, 2004).
The most important goal of strategy research is to establish why certain organizations are more
effective and efficient in the way they handle their business when compared to others, in addition
to understanding the mechanisms leading them to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage.
The Resource-based View (RBV) is a strategic management theory that is widely used in project
management, it examines how resources can drive competitive advantage. Competitive
advantage is the ability to create more value than rivals, and therefore generate higher returns on
investment. Sustainable competitive advantage requires enduring benefits through capabilities
that are not easily imitated (Killen et al., 2012). The RBV is built on the concept that resources
and capabilities are not heterogeneous across other organizations, and through the utilization of
this concept the success rate variations between organizations can be explained. Kraaijenbrink et
al (2010) quoted the argument of Barney (1991a, 1994, 2002) that “if a firm is to achieve a state
of sustained competitive advantage, it must acquire and control valuable, rare, inimitable, and
non-substitutable (VRIN) resources and capabilities.” PM resources and capabilities that have
been customized to a specific environment and developed over time are not easily imitated. Such
capabilities are constantly associated with better performance, leading to viewing PM as strategic
organizational capabilities that can provide enduring benefits. Examples of tangible PM
resources include methodologies and practices (know what), while intangible resources include
tacit knowledge sharing process and facilitation (know how). Following the Resource-based
View of the firm concept, the intangible resources are more likely to satisfy the requirement of
being rare and inimitable (Killen et al., 2012).
2.2 Empirical Review
Literature review in this study was used to collect secondary information on the causes of delays
in construction projects. Various studies have been conducted on the causes of construction
projects in various types of construction. These studies have varied in their scope and
methodology. Shahsavand et al., (2018) assessed the perceptions of consultants, contractors and
clients in the causes of delay in the construction industry. They identified 78 causes of delays in
the construction industry and categorized them into seven groups. These include causes due to
clients, labor and equipment, contractor, materials, design, external causes and causes due to
consultant.
Durdyev et al. (2017) identify attributes of delays in construction projects with a focus on
residential buildings. The survey that was administered to contractors and consultants showed
that the main causes of construction delays were shortage of material, unrealistic scheduling, late
delivery of materials, shortage of labor, project complexity, absenteeism of personnel, delays in
payment by owner, poor management, subcontractor delay and accidents.
Kikwasi (2012) assessed the causes of delays and disruptions in construction projects in
Tanzania by obtaining the views of clients, consultants, contractors and regulatory boards. The
main causes of delays were found to be changes in design, delays in payment to contractors,
delay in providing information, problems with project funding, poor management, compensation
issues and disagreements.
Mohammed and Isah (2012) investigated the causes of delay in the Nigerian constgruction
industry. Data collected from clients, contractors and consultants revealed that improper
planning, lack of communication, design errors and shortage of supply were the highest ranking
causes of delay in the Nigerian construction projects.
Owolabi et al., (2014) investigated the cause and effect of delay on construction delivery time on
a sample of 93 professionals from Nigeria. The questionnaire survey revealed that among the
main causes of delay in building construction industry in Nigeria are lack of funds to finance the
project to completion, changes in drawings, lack of effective communication among the parties
involved , lack of adequate information from consultants, slow decision making and contractor’s
insolvency, variations, project management problem, mistake and discrepancies in contract
document, equipment availability and failure, mistakes during construction, bad weather,
fluctuation in prices of building materials, inappropriate overall organizational structure linking
to the project and labour.
Cülfik, Sarıkaya and Altun (2014) Sought to identify the most important causes of delay in
construction projects in Turkey. The survey collected the views of owners, contractors and
consultants using a questionnaire targeted at 151 respondents. Using the relative importance
index method the survey found that each of the categories of respondents ranked the causes of
delays in terms of importance differently. However the overall results indicated that the owner
suspending the project, delays by owner to pay contractors progress and unrealistic duration of
project were the most common causes of delay that were identified by all the three groups.
Marzouk and El-Rasas (2014) Sought to identify the top ten most important causes of delay in
construction projects in Egypt. The questionnaire survey conducted among thirty-three owners,
contractors and consultants applied the importance index method by calculating the frequency
index, severity index and importance index. The findings showed that owner related causes were
conferred the highest priority followed by contractor relate causes with material related causes
having the least priority.
Islam et al. (2015) investigated the main causes of delay in the construction of large buildings in
Bangladesh. The questionnaire survey conducted among owners, contractors and consultants
found that the ten most important causes included manager’s lack of experience, selection of
bidders, shortage of funding, poor management, poor planning and scheduling, lack of skilled
labor, site factors, cash-flow problems, escalation of price of resources and excessive
contractor’s workload.
Durdyev and Hosseini (2018) provide a systemic review of studies conducted between 1985 and
2018 on delays in construction projects. They find that the greatest contribution has been
research from developing countries. 149 causes of delays were identified from 97 studies among
which were weather conditions, poor communication, poor coordination, conflict between
stakeholders, poor planning, lack of experience, shortage of workers and poor management.
Zidane and Andersen (2018) sought to identify the major universal delay factors in construction
projects in Norwegian construction projects. The literature review revealed that the top ten delay
factors were change of design during construction, delays in payment, poor planning, poor
management, improper design, inadequate experience of contractors, contractor financial
difficulties, Client financial difficulties, shortage of resources, poor productivity and shortage of
skills.
Venkatesh and Venkatesan (2017) identified the critical causes of delay in construction projects.
Fifty three research articles on causes of construction delays in different countries were
reviewed. The findings revealed that causes of delays in construction varied from country to
country. This study therefore sought to determine the causes of construction delays in Hong
Kong.
Chan and Kamaraswamy (1997) undertook a survey aimed at determining the significant factors
that caused delays in construction projects in Hong Kong. The study conducted among clients,
consultants and contractors in various types of projects identified 83 delay factors and
categorized them into eight major categories. The five main causes of delays that were identified
include poor management, unforeseen physical conditions, delayed decision making, variations
initiated by clients and work variations. It was also observed that the causes of delays varied
between countries.
Based on the literature reviewed it is evident that several studies have identified important causes
of delays in the construction projects of other countries (Islam et al., 2015; Kikwasi, 2012;
Durdyev et al., 2017, Shahsavand et al, 2018; Durdyev and Hosseini, 2018). However Venkatesh
and Venkatesan (2017) identifies that the causes in delay in construction project vary from
country to country. Shah (2016) Explored the causes of delays in construction projects in
Australia, Malaysia and Ghana for the purpose of comparing analysis of delay factors and
explaining why there are different delay factors with different priorities from one country to
another. The study found that there are diverse groups of delay factors from one country to
another.
One study identified causes of construction project delays in Hong Kong (Chan and
Kamaraswamy, 1997). However the research findings in these study are based on projects rather
than revitalization projects and may therefore not be applicable to this research in terms of scope
and nature. This is because the regulatory, legislative and project specific issues may vary from
one project type to the other. This study therefore seeks to fill this research gap by determining
the causes of delays in revitalization projects in Hong Kong. By doing this it will provide the
most effective solution to construction stakeholders for the most effective results.
Chapter Three: Methodology
3.1 Research Design
This study adopted a cross-sectional research design. This allowed for data to be collected from a
sample at a single point in time and generalized across the population being studied in order to
explain the phenomenon in question. The study also used quantitative methods which enabled
objective measurement and statistical analysis.
3.2 Research Population
The population under study included government officials in charge of revitalization schemes,
contractors and consultants in revitalization schemes. Government officers in charge of
revitalization projects included officials from Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) and
Commissioner for Heritage’s Office (CHO). Consultants and contractors were from each of the
seven revitalization scheme project of Phase I and II that had been completed.
3.3 Sampling
Simple random sampling was conducted to select a sample from each of the groups of
population. Six officials were selected from each of the government offices in charge of
revitalization projects while three contractors and three consultants were selected from each of
the seven revitalization scheme projects of Phase I and II that had been completed. The sampling
frame is as shown in Table 3.1
Table 3. 1 Sampling Frame
Category Sample Size
Government Officials 18
Consultants 21
Contractors 21
Total 60
3.4 Data Collection Method
Questionnaire survey method was used to investigate the causes of delays in revitalization
projects in Hong Kong. A number of articles were reviewed on the causes of delays in
construction projects. Based on this review, a questionnaire was developed for the purpose of
this study. Information on causes of delays was collected from a sample of government officials
in the revitalization schemes, contractors and consultants in the revitalization projects.
The questionnaire survey approach was chosen because it allowed the researcher to collect
information from a fairly large number of people in as short time as possible. It also allowed the
respondents to take their time to think about the questions and answer them latter. In addition the
respondents were free to answer the questions freely without worrying about the reaction of the
researcher.
43 most relevant causes of delays in construction projects were identified from the literature
review and the questionnaire was designed consisting of the 43 factors. These factors were then
categorized into seven categories, i.e. owner related, consultant related, contractor related,
construction materials related, construction labor/ equipment related, project related and external
causes. Table 3.2 shows that causes of delays in construction projects and how they were
grouped.
Table 3. 2 Causes of Delay
Group Causes
1. Delay related
to Owner
i. Poor decision makig
ii. Work suspension
iii. Late revision/approval of design documents by owner
iv. Late furnishing of site
v. Delay in payment of completed work
vi. Change of scope during construction
vii. Lowest bidder
viii. Unrealistic duration of contract
ix. Ineffective penalties for delays
x. Interference by owner
2. Delay related
to consultant
i. Lack of experience (Consultant)
ii. Delay in design approval
iii. Inappropriate design
iv. Unclear details in design
v. Quality control
3. Delay related
to contractor
i. Cash flow difficulties (Contractor)
ii. Poor management
iii. Poor planning/ scheduling
iv. Construction errors
v. Sub-contractor delays
vi. Lack of experience
vii. Delay in mobilization of site personnel
viii. Delay in providing drawings and samples of materials
4. Delay related
to material
i. Shortage of materials in the market
ii. Delivery problems
iii. Changes in material specifications during construction
5. Delay related
to labor and
equipment
i. Labor shortage
ii. Lack of skilled labor
iii. Low productivity
iv. Unavailability/ failure of equipment
6. Delay related
to project
i. Poor surface conditions
ii. Site traffic/ movement restrictions
iii. Site utilities restrictions/ delays (Water, electricity etc)
iv. Accidents
v. Activities adjacent to site/ neighbors’ interference
7. External
causes
i. Poor weather
ii. Poor environment
iii. Regulations and laws
iv. Government bureaucracy
v. Delay in inspection and certification
vi. Poor communication
vii. Inflation
viii. Political/ social unrest
3.5 Data Analysis
The Importance Index Technique was used to analyze data collected for this study. In this
technique each of the respondents was required to rate whether each of the factors contributed to
delays in revitalization projects in terms of frequency and severity based on a scale of 1 to 5; (1-
never, 2- rare, 3- sometimes, 4- often, 5- always) for frequency and (1- very low, 2- Low, 3-
medium, 4- great, 5- extreme) for severity.
Data was analyzed by first ranking the causes of delay in revitalization projects by frequency and
severity indices using the equations by Islam et al., (2017) in a survey on causes of construction
project delays in Bangladesh. According to Islam et al., (2017) The Frequency Index (FI) and
Severity Index (SI) for each delay factor are calculated using the equation
FI
Where
a= weight (1,2,3,4,5)
n= number of respondents
N= Total number of responses
Each factor was then ranked according to its frequency index and severity index as in table 3.3
Table 3. 3 Frequency and Severity ranking
Index (%) Frequency Severity
<20 Never Very low
20 – 40 Rare Low
40 – 60 Sometimes Medium
60 – 80 Often Great
80 – 100 Always Extreme
Having calculated the frequency index and severity index the importance index was calculate as
a function of both frequency and severity index using the function
(Importance Index)
Further analysis was conducted using statistics package for Social Scientists (SPSS). The Median
and range of numerical data was used for the purpose of comparing between the groups
(Government officials, contractors and consultants). A Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted for the
purpose of testing the difference of responses among the three groups. This is a non-parametric
test that is preferred in this case because it does not require the assumption of the data being
normally distributed or the variance being homogenous. Confidence values of 95% were
adopted.
Chapter Four: Findings
4.1 Response Rate
This study sought to determine the causes of delays in revitalization projects in Hong Kong. Out
of a targeted 60 respondents 57 were able to complete the questionnaires and return them to the
researcher. This gives a response rate of 95% which was considered sufficient for the research.
4.2 Background Characteristics
The researcher then sought to find out the background characteristics of the respondents. The
researcher began by determining the gender of the respondents and the findings were as shown in
table 4.1
Table 4. 1 Gender of Respondents
Category Male Female Total
Government Officials 13 (22.8%) 3 (5.3%) 16 (28.1%)
Contractors 15 (26.3%) 6 (10.5%) 21 (36.8%)
Consultants 14 (24.6%) 6 (10.5%) 20 (35.1%)
Total 42 (73.7%) 15 (26.3%) 57 (100%)
From table 4.1 it can be seen that majority of respondents in all the categories were male with a
total of 42 (73.7%) and 26.3% (n= 15) female. This is an indication that the construction industry
is male dominated.
The researcher further sought to find out the years of experience of the respondents. Table 4.2
shows the respondent’s years of experience.
Table 4. 2 Years of Experience
Category Over 10 Years 6 to 10 Years 1 to 5 years Less than 1 year Total
Government 2 (3.5%) 3 (5.3%) 6 (10.5%) 5 (8.8%) 16 (28.1%)
Officials
Contractors 8 (14%) 9(15.7%) 4 (7%) 0 (0%) 21 (36.8%)
Consultants 7 (12.3%) 8 (14%) 3 (5.3%) 2 (3.5%) 20 (35.1%)
Total 17 (29.8%) 17 (29.8%) 13 (22.8%) 10 (17.5%) 57 (100%)
From table 4.2 it can be seen that contractors and consultants had more experience than
government officials while contractors had the most experience among the three groups.
4.3 Causes of Delays by Frequency Index
Having determined the background characteristics of the respondents the researcher went ahead
to find out the respondents opinion on the causes of delays in revitalization projects. 43 factors
were considered and their frequency index was calculated based on the formula presented in the
methodology section. Table 4.3 presents the top ten causes of delays in terms of the frequency
index.
Table 4. 3 Top ten causes of delays by frequency index
Group (Delay related to) Cause FI
Owner Lowest Bidder 69.23
Contractor Poor planning/ scheduling 68.56
Owner Change of scope during construction 68.31
Owner Late revision/approval of design documents by owner 66.54
Owner Delay in payment of completed work 64.35
Contractor Poor management (Contractor) 63.21
Labor and equipment Low productivity 61.47
Contractor Cash flow difficulties (Contractor) 60.52
Project Poor surface conditions 59.02
Owner Poor decision making 58.99
From table 4.3 it can be observed that delays caused by the owner seeking the lowest bidder are
the most frequent. In addition majority of the top ten causes of delays according to the frequency
index are related to the owner. At the same time the top ten causes of delays according to the
frequency index are neither related to consultants, materials nor external causes. The top ten
causes according to the frequency index are lowest bidder, poor planning/ scheduling, change of
scope during construction, late revision/ approval of design documents by owner, delay in
payment of completed work, poor management (contractor), low productivity, cash flow
difficulties (contractor), poor surface conditions and poor decision making (Owner).
4.4 Causes of delays by severity index
Having identified the causes of delays by frequency index the researcher went ahead to find out
the causes of delays by severity index. Table 4.4 shows the top ten causes of delays by their
severity index.
Table 4. 4 Causes of delays by severity index
Group (Delay related to) Cause SI
Material Shortage of materials in the market 96.25
External causes Inflation 95.34
Owner Delay in payment of completed work 94.21
Project Poor surface conditions 91.25
Labor and Equipment Labor shortage 90.35
Consultant Lack of experience (Consultant) 90.33
Contractor Cash flow difficulties (Contractor) 89.95
Labor and Equipment Low productivity 88.85
Labor and Equipment Lack of skilled labor 88.32
Owner Change of scope during construction 88.04
Table 4.4 shows that shortage of materials in the market is the most severe cause of delays in
revitalization projects. At the same time majority of the top ten causes of delays according to
severity are related to labor and equipment. The top ten causes of delays according to severity
are shortage of materials in the market, inflation, delay in payment of completed work, poor
surface conditions, labor shortage, lack of experience (Contractor), cash flow difficulties
(contractor), low productivity, lack of skilled labor and change of scope during construction. It
was interesting to note that delay in payment of completed work, poor surface conditions, cash
flow difficulties (contractors) and change of scope during construction were among the top ten
causes both in terms of frequency and severity.
4.5 Causes of Delay by Importance index
Having ranked the causes of delays by their frequency and severity indices it was considered
necessary to rank them by their importance index. Table 4.5 shows the top ten causes of delays
by their importance index.
Table 4. 5 Causes of Delays by Importance Index
Group (Delay related to) Cause IMPI
Owner Delay in payment of completed work 59.36
Owner Change of scope during construction 58.96
Project Poor surface conditions 58.62
Labor and Equipment Low productivity 57.26
Contractor Poor planning/ scheduling 56.45
Contractor Cash flow difficulties (Contractor) 54.25
Owner Lowest bidder 53.92
Material Shortage of materials in the market 52.68
Owner Late revision/approval of design documents by owner 52.21
Labor and equipment Lack of skilled labor 50.48
From table 4.5 it can be observed that delays caused by the owner delaying in payment of
completed work are the most important. In addition majority of the top ten causes of delays
according to the importance index are related to the owner. At the same time the top ten causes
of delays according to the frequency index are neither related to consultants nor external causes.
The top ten causes according to the frequency index are delay in payment of completed work,
change of scope during construction, poor surface conditions, low productivity, poor
planning/scheduling, cash flow difficulties (contractor), lowest bidder, and shortage of materials
in the market, late revision/approval of design documents by owner and lack of skilled labor.
4.6 Comparison between Groups of Respondents Opinion
Having determined the top ten causes of delays by Frequency, severity and importance indices it
was considered important to determine whether there were differences in opinions among the
opinions of government officials, contractors and consultants. To achieve this a Kruskal-Wallis
test was conducted considering a P-value<0.05 to be significant. Table 4.6 shows the median of
frequency indices for causes of delays according to each group.
Table 4. 6 Comparison of Frequency of causes of delay between groups
Causes Group (Delay related to) Gov’t Officials Contractors Consultants P value
Owner 22 22 23 0.364
Consultant 7* 6* 9** 0.054
Contractor 19* 16* 14** 0.068
Material 6 5 7 0.846
Labor and equipment 9 7 9 0.462
Project 10 9 10 0.842
External causes 12 11 12 0.762
Total 85 86 84 0.866
Notes: The respondents group with ** is significantly different from the other two with *
Table 4.6 shows the median of frequency of causes of delay for each group as well as the p
values which indicate that there is a significant difference between the opinions of the groups for
P<0.05. From the table it can be seen that there is no difference in the opinions of the three
groups (Government officials, Contractors and consultants) for each group of causes. This
indicates that there is generally a good correlation between the three groups with respect to the
causes of delay.
Table 4. 7 Comparison of Severity of causes of delay between groups
Causes Group (Delay related to) Gov’t Officials Contractors Consultants P value
Owner 27* 27* 37** 0.264
Consultant 12 11 14 0.234
Contractor 21 24 22 0.128
Material 6** 9 8* 0.316
Labor and equipment 13 14 10 0.429
Project 13 16 15 0.562
External causes 19* 18* 23** 0.763
Total 111 119 129 0.516
Notes: The respondents group with ** is significantly different from the other two with *
Table 4.7 shows the median of severity of causes of delay for each group as well as the p values
which indicate that there is a significant difference between the opinions of the groups for
P<0.05. From the table it can be seen that there is no difference in the opinions of the three
groups (Government officials, Contractors and consultants) for each group of causes. This
indicates that there is generally a good correlation between the three groups with respect to the
causes of delay.
4.7 Prioritization of causes of delay
The study further went ahead to classify the causes of delay groups according to their importance
with the categories very low (VL), Low (L), Medium (M), High (H) and Very High (VH). Table
4.8 shows the median and degree of frequency and severity indices.
Table 4. 8 Degree of Frequency and Severity
Causes Group Frequency Severity
Median % Median %
Owner 27 VH 29.35 VH
Consultant 8.29 L 9.56 L
Contractor 14.33 H 15.38 H
Material 3.24 VL 4.82 VL
Labor and
equipment
8.92 L 7.54 L
Project 9.77 L 8.29 L
External causes 11.29 M 12.58 M
Total 82.84 87.52
Table 4.8 shows that the scores for frequency are in line with those for severity where causes of
delays related to owners have a very high degree of importance, causes of delays related to
contractors have a high degree of importance, causes od delay related to external causes have
medium degree of importance while causes of delays related to consultants, labor and equipment
and project have low degree of importance. Causes of delay related to material have very low
degree of importance.
Chapter Five: Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendations
5.1 Discussion
This study focused on the causes of delay in revitalization projects in Hong Kong. Three groups
of respondents (Government officials, contractors and consultants) were asked to give their
opinion of the most important causes of delay. 43 factors were considered as causes of delay in
revitalization projects. These factors were found to be related owners, contractors, consultants,
materials, labor and equipment, project and eternal causes. This was in line with Shahsavand et
al., (2018) who categorized factors causing delays in construction projects according to delays
due to clients, labor and equipment, contractor, materials, design, external causes and causes due
to consultant.
The study revealed that the top ten causes of delay according to frequency are lowest bidder,
poor planning/ scheduling, change of scope during construction, late revision/ approval of design
documents by owner, delay in payment of completed work, poor management (contractor), low
productivity, cash flow difficulties (contractor), poor surface conditions and poor decision
making (Owner). This is in line with Durdyev et al. (2017) who identified unrealistic scheduling,
delays in payment by owner and poor management as some of the main causes of construction
delays. It is also in agreement with Kikwasi (2012) who found delays in payment to contractors
and poor management to be some of the main causes of delays in construction projects. Islam et
al. (2015) also found selection of bidders, poor management, poor planning and scheduling and
cash-flow problems to be among the ten most important causes of delays in construction
projects. The study by Chan and Kamaraswamy (1997) that was conducted in Hong Kong also
showed that poor management and physical conditions were among the main causes of delays in
construction projects. However some of the causes of delays in construction projects that are
found to be important by these authors do not concur with the findings of this study.
This study also revealed that the top ten causes of delay according to severity were shortage of
materials in the market, inflation, delay in payment of completed work, poor surface conditions,
labor shortage, lack of experience (Contractor), cash flow difficulties (contractor), low
productivity, lack of skilled labor and change of scope during construction. This findings agree
with Durdyev et al. (2017) who found that shortege of material, shortage of labor and delays in
payment by owner to be some of the major causes of delays. Kikwasi (2012) also found delay in
payment to contractors to be one of the main causes of delays. The findings also agree with
Zidane and Andersen (2018) Who found that delay in payment was a major cause of delay in
construction projects.
It was noted that delay in payment of completed work, poor surface conditions, cash flow
difficulties (contractors) and change of scope during construction were among the top ten causes
both in terms of frequency and severity.
It was also revealed that the top ten causes of delay according to importance index were delay in
payment of completed work, change of scope during construction, poor surface conditions, low
productivity, poor planning/scheduling, cash flow difficulties (contractor), lowest bidder, and
shortage of materials in the market, late revision/approval of design documents by owner and
lack of skilled labor.
Comparison between the opinions of different groups of respondents revealed that government
officials, contractors and consultants had no significant difference in their opinions of either
frequency or severity of the group of causes. Prioritization of the causes of delay according to
frequency and severity revealed that owner related delays were conferred the highest importance
followed by contractor related delays. Material related delays were of least importance. This is in
line with Marzouk and El-Rasas (2014) who found that that owner related causes were conferred
the highest priority followed by contractor relate causes with material related causes having the
least priority.
5.2 Conclusion
This study sought to determine the causes of delays in revitalization projects in Hong Kong.
Government officials, contractors and consultants were asked to give their opinions on the causes
of delays. 43 factors were considered to be important causes of delays in construction projects.
The causes of delays were ranked according to their frequency, severity and importance. The top
ten causes of delays in revitalization projects were determined. The most important groups of
causes of delay in revitalization projects were prioritized. Owner related delays were found to be
the most important causes of delay followed by contractor related delays. Material related delays
were given the least priority. These conditions were found to be quite similar to those of other
countries and project types. However there were some dissimilarities which implies that their
application should be specific to the conditions of Hong Kong.
5.3 Recommendations
This study sough to determine the important causes of delays in revitalization projects in Hong
Kong. Based on the findings the study recommends that the clients (Government departments
and partner Non-profit Organizatios (NPOs)) make sure that they specify realistic project
duration in the contracts. It is also recommended that the client take enough time to prepare the
feasibility study and financial plan. Clients should also ensure the availability of the required
finding and approval. They should also ensure that consultants and contractors that are hired
have good experience and are reputable. In addition payments that are due to contractors and for
required materials should be mad in due time, according to the contract agreement. Tender
documents should also be made available in time and free of errors or contradictions.
The study also recommends that consultants should avoid delays in responding to queries as well
as approving documents and drawings. They should also have efficient control systems. On the
other hand contractors should have sound financial plans, develop comprehensive monitoring
and reporting and hire reputable and experienced sub-contractors. They should also develop
good management, supervision, planning and scheduling systems.
5.4 Limitations and Recommendations for further studies
This study was limited to the use of the importance index technique which involves rating a
given factor based on frequency and importance. This could introduce an aspect of ambiguity in
the questions leading to misunderstanding and errors in interpretation of the respondent’s
opinion. A similar study could be conducted which involved less ambiguous methods such as the
relative importance index method which requires only one response to each factor.
This study was also limited to a small portion of revitalization projects. Even though these were
the only projects that had been completed at the time of the study, it is recommended that a
larger number of projects be included in a similar study. Furthermore the study was only limited
to Hong Kong. It is, therefore, not clear whether the findings of the study could be accurately
generalized to revitalization projects in other parts of China, Asia and the world. It is therefore
recommended that similar studies be conducted involving other regions.
Finally, this study is limited to revitalization projects. It is therefore not clear whether the
findings could be generalized to other types of construction projects. It is therefore recommended
that similar studies be conducted on other types of projects including building, civil, residential
and commercial construction projects.
References
Shahsavand, P., Marefat, A. & Parchamijalal, M. (2018) Causes of Delay in Construction
Industry and Comparative Delays Analysis Techniques with SCL Protocol, Engineering
Construction and Architectural Management, 25(4), 497-533.
Durdyev, S., Omarov, M. & Ismail, S. (2017) Causes of Delay in Residential Construction
Projects in Cambodia, Cogent Engineering, 4.
Assaf, S. A., & Al-Hejji, S. (2006). Causes of delay in large construction projects, International
Journal of Project Management, 24, 349–357.
Durdyev, S., & Ismail, S. (2016). On-site construction productivity in Malaysian infrastructure
projects. Structural Survey, 34, 446–462.
Tsui, E. & Yau, E. (2016) More Hong Kong Heritage Being Saved, but Critics Questions Uses
its being put to, South Chiona Morning Post, Retreiver from
https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/article/1899479/more-hong-kong-heritage-being-saved-
critics-question-uses-its-being-put
Wong, R. (2013) Hong Kong’s Heritage Challenge, Global Construction Review, Retrieved from
http://www.globalconstructionreview.com/trends/hong-kongs-heritage-challenge/
Antiquities and Monuments Office (2017). Heritage Impact Assessment. Retrieved March 15,
2018 from The HKSAR, The Leisure and Cultural Services Department Web site:
http://www.amo.gov.hk/en/hia_01.php
Commissioner for Heritage’s Office (2017). Revitalising Historic Buildings through Partnership
Scheme. Retrieved March 15, 2018 from The HKSAR, The Development Bureau Web
site: https://www.heritage.gov.hk/en/rhbtp/about.htm
Yung, H. K. & Chan, H. W. (2011). Problem issue of public participation in built-heritage
conservation : two controversial cases Hong Kong. Habitat International, 35 (3), 457-
466.
Kikwasi, G.J. (2012) ‘Causes and effects of delays and disruptions in construction projects in
Tanzania’, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, Conference
Series, 1 (2) 52-59
Venkatesh, P.K. and Venkatesan, V. (2017) Delays in Construction Projects: Review of Causes,
Need and Scope for Further Research. Malaysian Construction Research Journal, 23(3),
89-112.
Chan, D.M.W. and Kamaraswamy, M.M. (1997) A Comparative Study of Causes of Time
Overruns in Hong Kong Construction Projects, International Journal of Project
Management, 15(1), 55-63.
Shah, R. (2016). An Exploration of Causes for Delay and Cost Overruns In Construction
Projects: Case Study of Australia, Malaysia &
Ghana. Journal of Advanced College of Engineering and Management, 2, 41-55.
Duraydev, S. & Hosseini, M.R. (2018) Causes of Delays on Construction Projects: A
Comprehensive List, Internation al Journal of Managing Projects in Business,
Zidane, Y. and Andersen, B. (2018), "The top 10 universal delay factors in construction
projects", International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 11(3), 650-672.
Mahamid, I. (2011) Risk matrix for factors affecting time delay in road construction projects:
Owners’ perspective. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 18(6),
609–617.
Owolabi, J. D., Amusan, L. M., Oloke, C. O., Olusanya, O., Tunji-Olayeni, P., Owolabi, D., &
Omuh, I. (2014). Causes and effect of delay on project construction delivery time.
International Journal of Education and Research, 2(4), 197–208.
Cülfik, M.S., Sarıkaya, O. & Altun, H. (2014) Causes of Delays in Construction Projects in
Turkey, 11 th International Congress on Advances in Civil Engineering, 21-25 October
2014 Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
Marzouk, M.M. and El-Rasas, T.I. (2014) Analyzing delay causes in Egyptian construction
projects. Journal of Advanced Research, 5(1), 49–55
Mohammed, K. and Isah, A. (2012) Causes of delay in Nigeria construction industry.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Construction Research in Business, 4(2), 785–795.
Commissioner for Heritage.(2008) Conserve and Revitalise Hong Kong Heritage, Retrieved
from http://www.heritage.gov.hk/en/index.htm.
Jones, K. (2017) Identifying and Managing Construction Project Risks, Retrieved from
https://www.constructconnect.com/blog/identifying-managing-construction-project-risks