journal of construction

ISSN 1994 - 7402

On the Department of Higher Education list of approved journals

(1,1) -1- JoC 11 Jun vol 4 no 1 cover.indd 2011/06/22 10:20:09 AM(1,1) -1- JoC 11 Jun vol 4 no 1 cover.indd 2011/06/22 10:20:09 AM

ADVISORY BOARD

Prof. John SmallwoodNelson Mandela Metropolitan UniversitySouth Africa

Prof. Jimmie HinzeUniversity of FloridaU.S.A.

Dr. Albert ChanThe Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityChina

Prof. Alan GriffithSheffield Hallam UniversityU.K.

Dr. Benedict IlozorEastern Michigan UniversityU.S.A.

Dr. David EdwardsLoughborough UniversityU.K.

Dr. Dean KashiwagiArizona State UniversityU.S.A.

Prof. Charles EgbuGlasgow Caledonian UniversityU.K.

Prof. Ronie NavonNational Building Research Institute (NBRI)Israel

Dr. Ayman Ahmed Ezzat OthmanCommercial Buildings DirectorateUnited Arab Emirates

Prof. Christian KochTechnical University of DenmarkDenmark

Prof. Paulo Jorge da Silva BártolaPolytechnic Institute of LeiriaPortugal

Dr. Faisal Manzoor ArainSouthern Alberta University of Technology Canada

Prof. Kerry LondonUniversity of NewcastleAustralia

Prof. Abdul Rashid bin Abdul AzizUniversiti Sains MalaysiaMalaysia

Prof. Ahmad RamlyUniversity of MalayaMalaysia

Dr. Nina BakerUniversity of StrathclydeScotland

Prof. James SommervilleGlasgow Caledonian UniversityScotland

Dr. Vian AhmedUniversity of SalfordU.K.

Prof. Nicola CostantinoPolytecnico di BariItaly

Prof. Stephen EmmittTechnical University of DenmarkDenmark

Prof. Derek Clements-CroomeUniversity of ReadingU.K.

Prof. David BoydUniversity of Central EnglandU.K.

Dr. Peter LoveEdith Cowan UniversityAustralia

Prof. Ravi Srinath PereraNorthumbria UniversityU.K.

Dr. Robert KongNanyang Technological UniversitySingapore

Prof. Stephen OgunlanaAsian Institute of TechnologyThailand

Dr. Wilco TijhuisUniversity of TwenteNetherlands

Dr. Gary SmithNorth Dakota State UniversityU.S.A.

Dr. Jane EnglishUniversity of Cape TownSouth Africa

Prof. Hojjat AdeliOhio State UniversityU.S.A.

Dr. Helen LingardRoyal Melbourne Institute of TechnologyAustralia

Prof. Low Sui PhengNational University of SingaporeSingapore

Prof. Marton MarosszekyUniversity of New South WalesAustralia

Dr. Onuegbu UgwuThe University of Hong KongHong Kong

Dr. Peter ErkelensEindhoven University of TechnologyNetherlands

Prof. Chris CloeteUniversity of PretoriaSouth Africa

Prof. Martin SextonUniversity of Salford U.K.

Prof. Russell KenleySwinburne University of Technology Australia

Dr. Hendrik MarxUniversity of the Free StateSouth Africa

Prof. Theo HauptMississippi State UniversityU.S.A.

Journal of Construction

EDITORIAL NOTE

Journal of Construction

This issue of the Journal of Construction (JoC) marks a milestone in its history. JoC has just been approved for inclusion on the List of Approved Journals by the Department of Higher Education (DoHE) after a protracted process by the Association of Schools of Construction of Southern Africa (ASOCSA). This issue is therefore, the very first to fully qualify for a DoHE subsidy. We hope that this achievement by ASOCSA and JoC will propel it as a vehicle to draw industry and academia closer together in a mutually beneficial partnership, and that the papers published in this issue will be of interest to academics and industry practitioners − especially as the authors of some of the papers hail from as far afield as Tanzania and Australia.

The papers address the assessment of programmes by Local Govern-ment Authorities in Tanzania for improving construction contract per-formance (Kikwasi); alternative measures of integration in construction

(Chileshe and Zuo); standard methods of measurement for underground development works (Maritz and Du Rand); and field diagnosis of causes and effects of rework in higher education residential facilities (Simpeh, Ndihokubwayo and Love). Unfortunately, we do not feature a technical paper this time.

We invite comments on the papers in this issue as well as JoC or ASOCSA in general. Send these to [email protected]

Should you wish to advertise in JoC, which is distributed to 5 000 professionals and practitioners in the Southern African region, contact us at [email protected] for rates.

Special thanks to each of the contributing authors and to the reviewers for their contributions to the papers in this historic issue of the Journal of Construction.

Theo C. Haupt, Ph.D., M.Phil., Pr. CM.

Director: Building Construction Science (BCS), College of Architecture, Art and Design, Mississippi State University

Visiting Professor: University of Johannesburg, Department of Construction Management and Quantity Surveying

Adjunct-Professor: University of KwaZulu-Natal; School of Civil Engineering, Survey and Construction

Immediate Past-President: Association of Schools of Construction of Southern Africa (ASOCSA)

Joint International Coordinator: CIB TG59 - People in ConstructionEditor-in-chief: Journal of Engineering, Design and Construction (JEDT)

Co-editor: Journal of Construction (JoC)

Email: [email protected]

(1,1) -2- JoC 11 Jun vol 4 no 1 cover.indd 2011/06/22 10:20:27 AM(1,1) -2- JoC 11 Jun vol 4 no 1 cover.indd 2011/06/22 10:20:27 AM

1Journal of Construction

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION

CONTENTS

1.

2.

3.

4.

VOLUME 4 NUMBER 1

EDITORIAL

STANDARD METHOD OF MEASUREMENT FOR UNDERGROUND DEVELOPMENT WORKSby M.J. Maritz and R. Du RandDepartment of Construction Economics, University of Pretoria

ALTERNATIVE MEASURES OF INTEGRATION IN CONSTRUCTION: A CRITICAL REVIEWby N. Chileshe and J. ZuoSchool of Natural and Built Environments, Barbara Hardy Institute (BHI), University of South Australia, City East Campus, Adelaide, South Australia

FIELD DIAGNOSIS OF CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF REWORK IN HIGHER EDUCATION RESIDENTIAL FACILITIESby E. Kwame Simpeh, R. Ndihokubwayo and P.E.D. LoveDepartment of the Built Environment, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa

ASSESSMENT OF LGAS PROGRAMMES FOR IMPROVING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PERFORMANCE: CASE STUDY OF KAGERA REGION DISTRICT COUNCILSby G.J. KikwasiSchool of Construction Economics and Management, Ardhi University,Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

ASOCSA is a registered Section 21 Company therefore all donations are fully tax deductable.

4 Journal of Construction

ABSTRACTPurpose: Bills of quantities for underground development works (UDW) are presently prepared with no uniformity of practice, lead-ing to troublesome misinterpretations and inconsistent pricing by contractors. This article describes the results of research to deter-mine if there is a requirement from the underground development industry to develop a separate standard system of measurement.

Methodology: Firstly, an empirical study was conducted, with ex-isting bills of quantities reviewed by way of methodological analy-sis and, secondly, market opinion was tested through purposive sampling to obtain responses from a relatively small population of experienced underground development professionals.

Findings: The results showed that UDW bills of quantities are not standardised and that there is a need to develop a bespoke standard system of measurement. UDW differs from civil works, and therefore the nature of the work, the circumstances under which it will be executed (site conditions) and the materials to be used have to be described in the bills of quantities in order to make tender comparisons easier.

Limitations: Only underground development unit operations (drilling, blasting, supporting, loading and hauling activities) were studied, with brief references to auxiliary operations. The influ-ence of contractual strategies and contract types was excluded.

Value: Motivation is provided for developing a commonly ac-cepted standard system of measurement (and associated model bills of quantities) to suit the needs of the UDW industry. Such a modified method of measurement should work in harmony with existing building, civil or other recognised measurement systems.

KEYWORDSUnderground development works, (UDW), standardisation, system of measurement, bills of quantities, unit operations.

INTRODUCTIONEquitable tendering processesContracts that are placed as a result of competitive tendering bills of quantities that are common to all bidders ensure comparability and are more economical in time and effort [1]. In addition, a project manager heading up a multi-disciplinary engineering con-struction project requires appropriate tools that define the scope of work in a clear, concise and manageable format.

Bills of quantities for the building and civil construction industries have been established largely to manage and control construction costs. It is prudent to review the primary functions and benefits of standard systems of measurement (on which bills of quantities are based) to establish what potential utilisations there are for UDW.

Primary functions of standard systems of measurementThe primary functions of a standard system of measurement can be described as follows [2]:

• Standardising the system of categorising construction work;

• Indicating the differentiating circumstances e.g. location or position of items to distinguish between degrees of difficulty, risk or site conditions;

• Indicating circumstances and/or parameters whether standard, special, repetitive or non-repetitive that can significantly affect the costs;

• Defining the limits of the items to leave no doubt as to what is included, deemed to be included or excluded; and

• Prescribing the method and sequence of determining dimen-sions, and calculating the quantities of measured items.

The building and civil engineering industries developed standard systems of measurement to control work executed by contractors. Examples of the foregoing in South Africa are the Standard System of Measuring Building Work (1999)[3] and the SABS 1200 Standardised Specifications for Civil Engineer-ing Construction Work (1981)[4]. The study has revealed that the UDW industry does recognise the value of bills of quantities, although no commonly accepted standards appear to be available.

Benefits of standard systems of measurementThe following benefits can be suggested by standardising the method of measurement (and model bills of quantities) for UDW:

• Employers and consultants will understand what the minimum requirements are when compiling bills of quantities;

• The distribution of cost risks between employers, consultants and contractors will be better understood;

• The effectiveness of project control and contract administration can be improved;

• Potential disputes arising from the interpretation of measured items can be minimised;

• Tender documents may be comparable as all the contractors interpret the method of measurement and bills of quantities in the same manner;

• A more competitive tendering environment can be established (saving time in re-work and constant re-invention);

• Unit rates can be used as comparative measures between different projects;

• Unit rates can be used with better accuracy when applied by employers and/or consultants in feasibility studies;

• Technology development in terms of software and systems development may improve, enabling users to price tender documents more efficiently; and

STANDARD METHOD OF MEASUREMENT FOR UNDERGROUND DEVELOPMENT WORKS

M.J. Maritz*, R. Du Rand**

*Department of Construction Economics, University of Pretoria [email protected] Tel +27 12 420 2581

**J.S. Redpath Ltd, Ontario, Canada [email protected]


• Successful standardisation in South Africa may lead to a global standardisation effort.

From a modern cost and project management perspective standard systems of measurement do not operate as stand-alone systems, but are often used in conjunction with a work breakdown structure (WBS) and code of accounts. The discussion and integra-tion of a WBS and code of accounts are excluded from this article.

OVERVIEW OF UNIT OPERATIONS AND FACTORS INFLUENCING UDW COSTSUDW unit and auxiliary operationsThe core of UDW activities consists of drilling, blasting, sup-port, loading and hauling. These basic steps are termed the unit operations of UDW.

Auxiliary operations consist of an array of different activities that support the unit operations, but do not have a direct impact on them. The auxiliary activities can be categorised as follows [5]:

• Gas and dust control;

• Ventilation and air conditioning;

• Disease prevention;

• Noise abatement;

• Groundwater protection;

• Subsidence control and roof control;

• Man cages, trips and cars;

• Water, compressed air, power, fuels, lubricants and pumping systems;

• Storage and delivery of supplies;

• Radio and telecommunication systems;

• Construction of roadways, haulage ways, settlers, silos or other civil structures; and

• Workshop or shop facilities.

Overview of the cyclic nature of UDWA high proportion of time-related costs exist in all tunnelling operations [6]. Therefore, when advancing a single development end, a crew is bound to the cycle of operations. Activities are ex-ecuted sequentially where the next operation can only be started once the preceding activity has been completed. Considering the impact that sequential activities have on the programme, it is important to understand the influence of mining equipment on unit rate pricing. The cycle of operations is generally adjusted to accommodate the type of equipment used as this can greatly affect the time taken to complete unit operations (or construction programme)[7].

Equipment and worker productivity are also not necessarily linked to physical abilities or capacities, but are restricted by the cyclic nature of the unit operations, including factors such as the proximity, accessibility and the number of available development ends. The construction duration is a critical factor in determining UDW costs [6].

General differences between the provisions of existing building standard systems of measurement and UDW requirementsConsidering that UDW consists mainly of large fixed costs, with these costs driven by time elapsed and not the actual heading advance, it is important to note the major differences between UDW and aspects covered in building standard systems of mea-surement:

• Method of excavation: Underground mine owners generally have significant existing infrastructure and use a specific fleet of equip-ment. It is not unusual for an owner to prescribe that the contrac-tor use specific equipment, or that equipment be free-issued by the owner. This approach sometimes restricts the choice that a contractor has in deciding on a method of excavation.

• Conveying and hoisting: The conveyance of personnel, ma-terials and equipment is a critical part of most underground projects. However, by deeming that hoisting and conveying are included in the unit rates, major costs may be left outside the control of contracting parties.

• Temporary work: Temporary work such as compressed air equipment, mini-subs, pumps, transformers, ventilation fans, hoists/winders, etc. is generally not measured under a building contract, but deemed to be included in unit rates. UDW, how-ever, requires significant high value construction equipment and services infrastructure and consideration should be given to the measurement of these items. Temporary services such as water, compressed air, concrete and fuel pipelines, electrical and communication cables, etc. may cover several kilometres in length and may warrant measurement to ensure equitable tender evaluations and interim payments to the contractor.

• High value temporary building structures: Winder houses (hoists), air compressed air plants (mobile or temporary) or other temporary structures may require significant foundations and structural steel construction. The costs of constructing these facilities are often hidden in larger lump sum values in UDW tenders. Even though temporary in nature, the measure-ment of these facilities is potentially warranted to ensure fair tenders and payment to contractors.

• Operations, care and maintenance: The building standard system of measurement focuses on the construction of new facilities or alterations to existing facilities. Items dealing with the operations, care and maintenance of newly constructed facilities are not covered in detail. There may be significant costs associated with labour, materials, equipment rentals and indirect charges when operating and maintaining a newly constructed shaft or tunnel excavation (due to the nature and large volume of excavations associated with UDW, and with projects often spanning multiple years, warranting mainte-nance of facilities constructed in prior years).

• Provision for free-issued items or the categorisation of items into ‘supply’ and ‘install’: The building standard system of measurement does not categorise responsibilities or specify unit rate prices into ‘supply’ and/or ‘install’ items. Due to the operational nature and high value of many UDW projects, employers generally have significant existing infrastructure or buying power and often opt to supply materials and major equipment free of charge to the contractor.

• Major equipment costs: The building standard system of measurement deems that unit rates cover the full spectrum of supply and installation e.g. the cost of hoisting and lifting items into position are deemed to be included. UDW generally has high value construction equipment and major costs may be incurred on time elapsed and not only on the development of end advances. As a result major equipment costs may vary considerably based on site duration, and may warrant separate equipment schedules, in lieu of lump sum pricing provisions.

Building measurement systems deal with detail and mostly accurate quantities, whilst UDW focuses more on bulk mea-surements, operational practicalities and with quantities more provisional in nature. By considering the value and/or complexity of UDW, thought must also be given to standardising the mea-surement of temporary work, the incorporation of method-related charges and provisions dealing with specialised or advancing technologies. It is also imperative to understand how UDW unit rates are affected by cost significant factors.

Cost significant factors affecting UDW unit ratesThe following cost significant factors can potentially be identified:

• Number of development ends (headings): Production capacity may not be constrained by fixed crew sizes or equipment, but by the number of available headings. The lesser the head-ings available, the more the operation becomes cyclic and constrained, with a higher cost per cubic metre of excavation.


the contractor makes windfall profit (high value fixed costs do not increase when development ends advance rates improve). Where the contractor achieves less than the tendered advance rate, the contractor may incur losses (potentially recovered through claims).

Suggested factors influencing the measurement of unit operationsThe following factors require consideration when measurements are taken for underground drilling and blasting activities:

• The expected ground conditions in general should be included or referred to in the project specifications (or assumed reference conditions should be used);

• Differentiation should be made between hand-held and mechanised drilling;

• Differentiating between the number of development ends (to be able to identify in-line or concurrent operations);

• The type of explosives, at least for tendering purposes, should be listed;

• Differentiation between conventional or smooth wall blasting techniques; and

• The acceptable limit of normal overbreak should be specified.

The following factors require consideration when measure-ments are taken for ground support activities:

• A detailed specification of the type of support including grout admixtures;

• Density, pattern or thickness (shotcrete) of the ground support;

• Differentiation between conventional hand-held or mechanised roof or sidewall bolt installations;

• The sequence of installation (in-line or concurrent);

• Maximum allowable distance of unsupported hanging wall or side wall; and

• Testing and/or quality control requirements.

The following factors require consideration when measure-ments are taken for underground rock loading (mucking) activities:

• Specific equipment to be used must be specified e.g. trackless or track-bound equipment;

• The specific density of the material to be handled;

• The location of the development end, and the average one way distance to the closest tipping point;

• The average and maximum tunnel or drift dimensions to be expected during operations;

• Special requirements regarding safety, environmental and noise control; and

• Any restrictions on the use of diesel or electrically driven equipment.

The following factors are to be considered when measurements are taken for underground rock hauling activities:

• Specific equipment to be used must be specified e.g. trackless or track-bound equipment;

• The specific density of the material to be handled;

• The final point of discharge (shaft ore pass or level ore pass) and the one way distance thereto;

• The average and maximum tunnel or drift dimensions expected during operations;

• Special requirements regarding safety, environmental and noise control;

• Any restrictions on the use of diesel or electrically driven equipment; and

• Restrictions related to the maximum capacity of the hauling system.

• Optimum number of development ends: The number of head-ings can increase to a point where the optimum capacity of the crew(s) or equipment is reached. The unit cost of excavation improves (decreases) until optimum productivity is achieved.

• Location of and access to available development ends: Two or more headings may be available, but constraints such as ventilation, or distance between headings, insufficient com-pressed air or physical obstructions may prevent the optimisa-tion of productivity.

• Excavation size categories: Tunnel sizes for shafts, lateral development or raise headings are not standardised and minor size changes may have significant cost implications due to different construction methods or the possible use of different equipment. Categorising sizes may seem logical, but it does not necessarily have a relationship to the cost per cubic metre of excavations or the chosen method of construction.

• Method of excavation: Employers do not generally prescribe the method of excavation, but due to safety requirements, mine ownership, mine layout, logistics or purchasing economies of scale, maintenance and other requirements, they may prescribe the equipment or material to be used, which may affect the unit costs, production rates or the method of excavation.

• Time blasting: Time blasting in an operating mine or shaft schedules (for logistical support) may have a significant impact on the cycle of operations. With time blasting all charged head-ings are set off at the same time (every day). Due to the cyclic nature of operations, should all preparatory work be finished before the blast time, unproductive hours may be incurred.

• Mean averages and balanced pricing (location-based pricing): Providing balanced unit rates may be onerous for a contractor e.g. similar work on different mining levels may have differ-ent unit rates. Underground excavations and/or construction operations may be spread over multiple years, and where no alternatives are offered, averaged cycles may be utilised to reflect single unit rates. Averaged unit rates, however, may place a huge financial burden on a contractor, especially when the bulk of the excavations are done in the last third or quarter of a long term contract.

• Environmental conditions and/or location restrictions: With the cyclic nature of underground work and limited underground storage space, operations may be bound to tight logistical schedules. In addition, the layout or configuration of under-ground work may also restrict movement. For example, if a crew cannot develop a specific end, alternative development ends may be available on other levels within the mine, but there may be no means of readily accessing those development ends due to lack of available transportation systems. Similarly ventilation constraints and/or personnel safety requirements may prevent the development of readily accessible develop-ment ends.

• Dealing with water: Dealing with underground water inter-sections can be an arduous and unpredictable operation with the potential to significantly impact the work. When involved with pressure grouting operations, it is extremely difficult to accurately estimate the quantities of cement-based materials to be pumped (grouted), when the acceptance rate of the surrounding rock is unknown. Special provisions when deal-ing with water, including the pressure grouting thereof, must be considered.

• The nature of material cannot be assumed: The hardness and abrasiveness of the rock are critical aspects for the UDW contractor when deciding which type of equipment, materials or consumables to use. The method of excavation depends on knowing what type of rock is anticipated and assumptions should be avoided where possible.

• Ground conditions: Generally a single unit rate applies for the driving of similar sized development ends with the rates based on employer provided information. Should ground conditions improve and better advance rates be achieved,


REVIEW OF UDW TENDER BILLS OF QUANTITIESReview of existing UDW tender bills of quantities and associated documentationTen UDW tender bills of quantities and associated documentation were subjected to an assessment matrix to determine the level of standardisation (or non-standardisation) and to evaluate how effective cost significant factors were measured. Projects were also benchmarked against a ‘potentially ideal bills of quantities’ to measure each project’s position relative to the ideal.

Overview of selection criteriaThe review did not cover the tender documents in their entirety, but only focused on the methods of measurement, bills of quantities, schedules of responsibilities and relevant project specifications. The criteria used to select the tender documents were:

• Tender documents must relate specifically to UDW;

• Tender documents must have been issued between 2004 and 2006;

• Tender documents must cover small projects (less than R50-million), medium sized projects (exceeding R50-million, but not exceeding R500-million) and large scale projects (exceed-ing R500-million);

• Estimated project durations must range from less than 12 months to 60 months (or exceeding);

• Tender documents must be open market tenders (not negoti-ated) and issued to three or more contractors;

• Tender documents must be issued by different employers;

Figure 1: General Structure rating distribution and benchmark comparison of 10 selected tender bills of quantities.

• Employers issuing tender documents must be active participantsin UDW; and

• The tender documents in combination must cover the full spectrum of UDW.

TENDER DOCUMENT REVIEW CONCLUSIONS:Review of General Structure (Questions A1 – A10 in Assessment Matrix)Figure 1 provides a visual overview of the respective project rat-ings related to the General Structure, questions A1 to A10, as well as how each reviewed project compares to the benchmark.

All tender documents reviewed recognised the need for a method of measurement, yet all 10 tender documents used different methods of measurement. The bills of quantities relied heavily on project specifications and schedules of responsibilities to clarify the scope of work and responsibilities (design, approve, supply, install and remove).

The potential standardisation of a method of measurement (and model bills of quantities) may yield benefits in clarifying risk distribution, standardisation of pricing practises and making equivocal comparisons from project to project possible.

Review of Preliminary and General Items (Questions B1 – B10 in Assessment Matrix)Figure 2 provides a visual overview of the respective project ratings related to the Preliminary and General items (P&G), questions B1 to B10, as well as how each reviewed project compares to the benchmark.

Figure 2: P&G rating distribution and benchmark comparison of 10 selected tender documents.


P&G items in general, followed the same structure as detailed in the civil standard system of measurement[8] (SABS 1200 A: General, 1986). Sections detailing fixed, value and time related costs were included and contractors were able to specify and price additional items. Figure 2, however, indicates large inconsistencies between each project and the benchmark, as well as between different projects. There was a general tendency to keep P&G items to a minimum, with additional details requested through addendums.

Review of Measured Work (Questions C1 – C20 in Assessment Matrix)Figure 3 provides a visual overview of the respective project ratings related to Measured Work, questions C1 to C20, as well as how each reviewed project compares to the benchmark.

Work related to civil, mechanical or electrical construction generally followed the guidelines and structure of the SABS 1200. Where the SABS 1200 was deemed not applicable, employers provided project or company specific project specifications. Measured items for UDW were largely supported by separate methods of measurement. Figure 3 provides an overview of the rating distribution of questions dealing with specific measure-ment aspects. The bar chart in Figure 3, however, shows large inconsistencies between each project and the benchmark, as well as between the different projects.

The following general trends can be summarised:

• Development end sizes were measured separately;

• The contractor was generally provided with sufficient informa-tion regarding the location and complexity of the works, as well as the anticipated ground conditions;

• Measured work was generally broken down into primary and secondary classifications;

• Permanent services and infrastructure were measured sepa-rately; and

• Items dealing with unavoidable overbreak, water and gas were included as measurable activities.

Tender documents overallFigure 4 provides a visual overview of each project’s combined ratings related to the benchmark and each project’s position rela-tive to other evaluated documents.

Figure 3: Measured Work rating distribution and benchmark comparison of 10 selected tender documents.

With reference to the spider diagram in Figure 4, the following conclusions can be made:

• A rating distribution variance of 48% exists between the bills of quantities with the highest level of perceived standardisation and those of the lowest;

• If an arbitrary rating of above 75% of the possible benchmark score was used to accept or reject a document as being suf-ficiently standardised, then seven of the 10 projects would be deemed not suitable for open market tendering purposes;

• The size, complexity or value of a project does not improve the level of detail, level of standardisation or quality of the bills of quantities;

Figure 4: Overall project rating distribution and benchmark comparison of 10 selected tender bills of quantities.


• The method of measurement strongly influenced the overall suitability and quality of the bills of quantities;

• The method of measurement and bills of quantities are dependent on the schedule of responsibilities and project specifications; and

• It is evident that the existing methods of measurement and bills of quantities in the samples reviewed are not standardised.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONResearch purpose and designThe research design is an empirical study based on the analysis of existing or secondary data by reviewing 10 tender bills of quantities issued for pricing to UDW contractors (supra), and the collection of primary field data in the format of a questionnaire to understanding the views and opinions of professionals working in the UDW industry regarding procurement in order to derive meaningful conclusions.

A questionnaire was chosen as the most appropriate type of measuring instrument to evaluate the opinions of project manag-ers, engineers, quantity surveyors, estimators and other profes-sionals with regard to the usefulness of bills of quantities, and whether current measurement principles required modifications. The research method used was therefore quantitative and the methodology applied in analysing and interpretation of data was based on descriptive survey research.

The primary purpose of the market survey was to establish whether industry requires a standardised method of measurement for UDW and, secondly, to establish if existing bills of quantities can be modified to a commonly accepted standard.

Research population and sampling methodThe research population consisted of employers and/or consultants and major contractors. The two groups were each represented by the following key occupation classifications:

• Employers and/or consultants: Project managers, engineers, project controllers and quantity surveyors; and

• Contractors: Operational site managers, engineers, quan-tity surveyors, estimators and other departmental managers (financial and commercial).

Although UDW tender values tend to be significant, it is not indicative of the number of professionals and contractors actively engaged in the industry. Purposive sampling was therefore used due to the relative small number of respondents and was restricted to respondents having had a minimum of three years direct or indirect exposure to UDW in South Africa.

The distribution of respondents was six responses received from employers and/or consultants and 12 responses received from contractors. The reason for having a higher percentage response from contractors can be ascribed to the fact that contractors receive documentation from a wide array of employers and/or consultants and as such are better positioned to comment on non-standardised documents issued for tender.

Data collection procedureThe questionnaire was divided into the following six sections:

• Section A, Bills of quantities: Established whether there was general acceptance of bills of quantities as a useful tendering and contract administration tool.

• Section B, Standardisation of documentation: Established if industry requires standardisation of UDW bills of quantities and related documentation.

• Section C, Contractor’s plant (equipment): Established whether current methods of obtaining tender prices are suitable or whether other alternatives should be investigated.

• Section D, Contractor’s general engineering supplies and/or

materials: Established if current methods of obtaining prices are suitable or if other alternatives must be investigated.

• Section E, P&G: Obtained each respondent’s views and/or opinions regarding major and/or critical aspects of the P&G.

• Section F, Unit operations and/or measured works: Obtained each respondent’s views and/or opinions regarding cost sig-nificant factors affecting unit rates and/or prices.

Sections A to F made used of a five point Likert rating scale and responses were grouped per category and a percentage calculated based on the resultant selections. The percentage classifications were as follows:

• Employer average rating: An average was calculated from the responses received from employers/consultants.

• Contractor average rating: An average was calculated from the responses received from contractors.

• Combined average rating: A combined average was calculated from all the responses received from employers/consultants and contractors.

Figure 5: Bills of Quantities rating distribution.


Summary of market survey resultsFigure 5 provides a summary of the perceptions of employers/consultants and contractors regarding the usefulness of bills of quantities as a procurement tool. The views of employers/consul-tants and contractors are similar and the following conclusions can be summarised:

• 89% of respondents agreed that bills of quantities were useful in obtaining tender prices and for contract administration; and

• No conclusive agreement could be reached as to the extent that bills of quantities should reflect pricing or contractual risks.

Figure 6 provides a summary of the perceptions of employers/con-

sultants and contractors regarding the non-standardisation of bills of quantities, as well as the potential benefits of standardisation. The views of employers/consultants and contractors are similar and the following conclusions can be summarised:

• 83% of respondents agreed that bills of quantities are non-standardised; and

• It appears that employers/consultants and contractors share the same level of confidence in that bills of quantities can be standardised.

Figure 6: Standardisation of documentation rating distribution.

Figure 7 provides a summary of the perceptions of employers/consultants and contractors regarding the acceptability of current UDW unit rate measurement principles. The views of employers/consultants and contractors are similar and the following conclu-sions can be summarised:

• Differentiation must be made between supply and installation;

• Drill, blast, load and haul operations per heading must be measured per heading size as one item, with ground support installation, cover drilling and concrete linings measured separately;

• Specific preferences such as smooth wall blasting and the type of explosives to be used must be included in bills of quantities (or schedule of responsibilities);

• Underground tolerances must be stated and normal overbreak measured separately;

• Billed items must differentiate between varying locations, different underground levels or other similar cost significant factors that can affect unit rate pricing;

Figure 7: Unit operations and/or measured work rating distribution.

• Billed quantities per number of development ends must be provided by the employer/consultant prior to the issue of the tender to ensure comparative market pricing;

• The method of excavation (construction) and equipment selec-tion are to remain the contractor’s decision, unless specifically prescribed; and

• Billed items must differentiate between hand-held and mecha-nised operations.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONSThe study confirms that existing UDW bills of quantities (and associated methods of measurement) cater for most cost sig-nificant factors. Conformance to recognised standards becomes, however, critical to provide an effective means of differentiating in a competitive marketplace. Modifications are, therefore, required to establish a commonly accepted standard system of measurement (and associated model bills of quantities), integrated with a master schedule of responsibili-ties, to suit the needs of the UDW industry. Such a modified method of measurement should not be de-veloped as a stand-alone system, but should work in harmony with existing building, civil or other recognised measurement systems.

An alternative method of mea-surement for contractor’s plant (equipment) should be investi-gated. No conclusive evidence exists to establish a new method of measurement for contractors’ general engineering supplies, al-though temporary work should be measured (provisionally) to ensure that comparative market pricing is obtained. The P&G should be broken down into the major project phases and must include items for ongoing care and mainte-nance activities. Further research is, however, required regarding the inclusion of a method-related section for capturing the costs of temporary work/installations that are linked to the method of excavation or mining.

REFERENCES[1] Hughes, G.A. 1978. The

Anatomy of Quantity Sur-veying. London. Construc-tion Press Limited, p.36.

[2] Hughes, G.A. 1978. The Anatomy of Quantity Sur-veying. London. Construc-tion Press Limited, p.41.

[3] Association of South Af-rican Quantity Surveyors. 1999. Standard System of Measuring Building Work. 6th Ed. Midrand. South Africa. ASAQS.

[4] SABS 1200 Standardised Specifications for Civil Engineering Construction Work. 1981. Pretoria.

[5] Hartman, H.L. and Mutmansky, J.M. 2002. Introduction to Mining Engineering. 2nd Ed. New Jersey. USA. John Wiley & Sons, p.149.

[6] Barnes, M. 1992. CESMM3 Handbook: A guide to the financial control of contracts using the Civil Engineer-ing Standard Method of Measurement. 2nd Ed. London. Thomas Telford, p.194.

[7] Hartman, H.L. and Mutmansky, J.M. 2002. Introduction to Mining Engineering. 2nd Ed. New Jersey. USA. John Wiley & Sons, p.120.

[8] SABS 1200 Standardised Specification for Civil Engineer-ing Construction Work. 1986. SABS 1200 A: General. Pretoria. SABS.


ABSTRACTPurpose: The construction industry is featured by fragmented ap-proaches where the activities and participating parties are isolated from each other. As a consequence, a confrontational relationship is formed which affects the project outcomes significantly. The purpose of this paper is to identify and discuss the key conceptual and empirical issues affecting ‘integration’, and that should be considered in the measurement of integration within the Australian construction industry context.

Methodology: This research also uses a comprehensive content analysis of existing studies drawn from various industries and focusing on the concept of ‘integration’.

Findings: A research agenda is set up to target this critical issue of integration ranging from critical success factors, barriers and measurement instruments of integration. Justification and ex-planations are provided for the refinements made to the existing measurement instruments of integration.

Value: These findings are of value to academics and practitioners in understanding the future directions of research in integration and how some of the existing instruments used to measure inte-gration could be adapted for the Australian construction industry context.

KEYWORDSIntegration, construction projects, measurement instruments.

INTRODUCTIONThe construction industry in Australia comprises about 585 000 enterprises and employs some 900 000 people [1]. In total, the industry accounts for approximately 7% of Australia’s GDP. Within the context of South Australia, the industry contributes some 6% to the State’s Gross Domestic Product and employs more than 60 000 people, thereby making it the seventh largest employer in South Australia. The success (productivity) of the industry can be linked to the workforce and the innovative ways of enhancing productivity such as integration. The construction industry is featured by fragmented approaches where the activi-ties and participating parties are isolated from each other. As a consequence, a confrontational relationship is formed which affects the project outcomes significantly. The proliferation of articles within manufacturing and service literature has left a void within construction-related research. Most arguments put forward are that the integrated approaches used in manufacturing can be utilised within the service sector.

The paper is divided into four main parts. Firstly, the general background of integration, including its definition, classification, and critical success factors is presented. Secondly, a critical review of integration research published in various industries and contexts, which compares and contrast the various viewpoints − thus identifying the knowledge gap − is undertaken. The research methodological approach adopted for this study is explained in the third section. And, fourthly, based on the findings of concep-

ALTERNATIVE MEASURES OF INTEGRATION IN CONSTRUCTION: A CRITICAL REVIEW

Nicholas Chileshe* and Jian Zuo**

School of Natural and Built Environments, Barbara Hardy Institute (BHI), University of South Australia, City East Campus, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, South Australia 5001

*nicholas.chileshe.edu.zu, **[email protected]

tual and empirical issues affecting ‘integration’, the setting of the research agenda incorporating future directions within the global and Australian construction industry context is proposed.

INTEGRATION DEFINITIONSBefore considering the key conceptual and empirical issues af-fecting ‘integration’, it is necessary to define what is meant by the terms ‘systems’ and ‘integration’. The Concise Oxford dictionary defines a system as: “a complex whole; a set of connected things or parts: an organised body or material or immaterial things”. It can be interpreted as a model used in practice or theory to show relationships, interactions and functions.

‘System integration’ is defined as “a set of process and re-sources that are designed and performed in order to achieve a desired objective, such as a product” [2]. When ‘integration’ is examined within the context of teams in construction projects it is defined as the working practices, methods and behaviours that create a culture of efficient and effective collaboration by individu-als and organisations [3]. ‘Project integration’ is further defined as where different disciplines or organisations with different goals, needs and cultures merge into a single cohesive and mutually supporting unit [2]. Parallels should be drawn from different fields in order to understand the concept of integration [4]. Citing from the Project Management Institute, ‘integration’ is further defined as the process required to ensure that the various elements of the project are properly co-ordinated. Given the definitions reviewed, it is evident that some of the common denominators are focused on unification of separate entities. This can thus be inferred at either individual or project level within the construction context.

LITERATURE REVIEWIntegration studies in generalWithin the manufacturing sector, collaborative team integration processes are important to attain the required manufacturability goals [5]. A study established that the team integration variables, as measured by the factor scores of top management, manufactur-ing involvement, collaborative working environment, and supplier influence played a key role in improving manufacturability such as: product acceleration, technological uncertainty, complexity, and product newness. Despite the reasonable sample size (n = 180) adopted in this study, and its empirical nature, it is evident that country wise it was constrained to the USA. Innovation could be increased in cross-functional teams and could reinforce the com-patibility between functional identities within a team-facilitated access to functionally unique knowledge systems, which in turn increased team innovation [6].

Previous research on integrationA selection of studies on integration in various disciplines and industries was undertaken. Table 1 presents a summary of the studies reviewed based on the researchers, context and findings as reported. The merits and demerits of the construction related stud-ies [7,8,9,10,11,12] are briefly discussed in the following section.


Context of research study FindingsMethodological issues in design-construction integration [13]*

Proposed a framework or analytic model for integrating the design and construction phases of a project’s life cycle, based on an empirical abstraction of the interactions that occur between these phases.

Collaborative relationshipsSurvey of 63 contractors in the UK [7]*

Risk sharing, access to innovation and technology, response to market, resource efficiency and client requirements as the main reasons for engaging in collaborative relations.

Survey of 259 Canadian and US manufacturing managers of New Product Development (NPD) teams [14]

Quality of communication between functional disciplines involved in NPD activities, perceived risks and complexity of using cross-functional NPD teams, and the complexity of the organisation’s NPD activities all influence organisational support for cross-functional teams.

Survey of 189 NPD managers within the Manufacturing Industry [15]

Developed a model of the organisational factors that influence the extent that concurrent engineering (CE) teams are used.

Survey of 189 NPD managers within the Manufacturing Industry [16]

Frequency of use of CE teams and functional involvement of CE teams influences both NPD financial and development performance.

Survey of 234 team members in 44 development teams in 11 companies involved with production and development of digital products [17]

Team co-operation and team integration relate inversely U-shaped to team performance.

Construction innovation; not particularly investigating the team integration [8]*

Procurement methods that encourage construction team integration improve innovation outcomes.

A panel of international PPP experts used to assess a model [19]

Provided examples of priorities and lessons learned in relationship building in on-going PPPs.

Collaborative processes and trans-disciplinary integration, Medicine [9]

Developed tools for examining underlying processes of team science.

Managers drawn from 27 organisations [18] Identified three components of exemplary performance in establishing and developing strategic relationships. These are seven dimensions of relations; aspects within each dimension called elements; and roles of these exemplar managers. The seven dimensions of strategic relations were as follows: (1) partner selection; (2) nature of contract; (3) understanding each other; (4) interpersonal relationships; (5) way of working; (6) dealing with problems; and (7) performance management.

USA and Denmark case studies used to highlight and explore the practical application of lean approaches [20]

Identified a number of interdependent factors necessary for integration as a value identification/specification: an appropriate project delivery framework; structuring and planning of delivery processes; transparency; management and leadership; learning; and the importance of local context.

Product development/ manufacturing [21] Identified five integration enablers and four integration maintainers.Critical success factors (CSF)[22] Identified 31 primary CSFs which were further distilled into the following four

interdependent group factors: management factors; design team factor; competencies and resource factors; and project enablers.

183 project leaders and project members from 49 system integration (SI) project teams [23]

Established casual relationship between SI project team member and project performance.

Multiracial identity integration

Fifty-seven self-identified multiracial individuals [24]

Offers the instrument to measure the multiracial identity integration (MII), to measure individual differences in perceptions of compatibility between multiple racial identities. They found that MII is composed of two independent subscales: racial distance that describes whether different racial identities are perceived as disparate and racial conflict that describes whether different racial identities are perceived as in conflict. They also found that recalling positive multiracial experiences increased MII, while recalling negative multiracial experiences decreased MII.

Manufacturing [5] The team integration variables, as measured by the factor scores of top manage-ment. Manufacturing involvement, collaborative working environment, and sup-plier influence plays a key role in improving manufacturability such as: product acceleration, technological uncertainty, complexity, and product newness.

183 project leaders and project members from 49 SI project teams [23]

Established casual relationship between SI project team member and project performance.

138 team leaders from information systems development teams [24]

Found team behavioural integration and team cohesion to positively affect individual improvisation.

Cross-cultural communication Interviewed 20 project managers from Kenya and UK [10]*

Identified factors contributing towards fully integrated cross-cultural team: trust and collectivism.

Outcomes and antecedents of trust in inter-organisational projects [26]

Trust between project team members working on an inter-organisational project positively impacts the acquisition of external knowledge. The following antecedents ‘project team members’ and ‘objective project reward’ criteria facilitate the formation of inter-organisational trust.

Clients in the construction industry [11]* Team integration is one of the factors contributing towards contractor performance in the UK construction industry.

Clients, consultants, main contractors, specialist contractors, subcontractors and suppliers [12]*

Six factors were identified as to how integration and innovation in the Singaporean construction industry can be enhanced.

Table 1: Summary of studies on integration.


Integration studies in constructionThe cultural factors that influence communication were examined and it was explored how communication can be made effective in multicultural project environments [10]. A comparative qualitative research methodology involving cross-cultural communication interviews of 20 project managers from Kenya and UK were adopted for this study. Trust and collectivism were among the factors identified as contributing towards fully integrated cross-cultural team.

A study sought to understand the customer’s perspective of excellent performance and established team integration as one of factors contributing towards contractor performance in the UK construction industry [11]. However, from a methodological point of view, this study was dependant on the qualitative approach of semi-structured interviews with some of the largest construction customers in the UK. Secondly, the study only included the clients within its sample.

The obvious omission of other stakeholders such as contractors, consultants and suppliers suggests that there is an obvious knowledge gap in understanding and gaining the insights of the contributory factors to performance.

Other studies within construction have attempted to link procurement and integration. For example, the key factors contributing toward construction innovation were investigated, and it was found that procurement methods that encouraged construction team integration improved innovation outcomes [8]. However, this was not backed by empirical research as the research methodological approach and data collection was purely based on literature review. Secondly, the context of the study did not particularly investigate the team integration.

Collaborative relationshipsPrevious attempts have also focused on collaborative relationships. For example, a study within the construction context and empirical in nature, attempted to describe the UK contractor’s perception of collaborative relationships in construction, and identified risk sharing, access to innovation and technology, response to market, resource efficiency and client requirements as the main reasons for engaging in collaborative relations [7].

Enablers of integrationSome studies have also attempted to identify the activities and initiatives that will motivate and enable innovation activities. For example, six factors were identified, thus labelled as enablers for enhancing the integration and innovation in the Singaporean construction industry [12].

The study also identified 11 implementation strategies for great integration, of which the top ranked was ‘contractors, subcontrac-tors and suppliers to adopt construction management systems that are compatible to ensure the smooth running of projects’. A behavioural change was advocated among the project team members [3]. The study suggested that professionals needed to see themselves as members of a project team rather than as members of their individual disciplines.

Barriers and challenges to integrationThe extent of integration achieved by construction project teams was investigated and the following three barriers were identified as challenges in achieving integration: project culture, behavioural change, and measurement of integration [3].

Impact of integration on project performanceSome studies have explored the casual relationship between integration and project performance. For example, data collected from 49 system integration project teams was used to develop and validate a model aimed at exploring the relationship be-tween system integration team members’ knowledge and project performance [23]. The findings indicated a positive relationship between the two variables.

Integration studies within the Australian construction industry contextIntegration and project performance related research has been conducted within the context of the Australian construction industry. For example, knowledge management (KM) initiatives have been proposed as mechanisms for the improvement in the integration of people, process and technology [27]. Some studies not focused on integration have investigated the application of project alliances within the Australian construction industry and identified team culture as one of the important elements of al-liancing [28]. Other studies have also established ‘team culture’ as an enabler for integration [3,15]. From these studies, it could thus be argued that project alliancing as a procurement option has a role in the effective deployment of integration.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGYThe exploratory approach is used in this ongoing research. The rationale of such an approach – which is an extensive literature review on the management writing − has been employed in previous studies [29]. For the purpose of this research, it aimed at discussing the key conceptual and empirical issues affecting ‘integration’, and should be considered in the measurement of integration within the Australian construction industry context.

Another objective was to review the existing modes or instru-ments designed to measure the concept of integration and their inadequacies. The research process can be identified as having three distinct phases: the literature review, the pilot study and main study as phase three. The findings reported here are drawn mainly from an extensive literature review in phase one. In achiev-ing the aims and objectives of this research, a robust methodology is being developed as part of an ongoing process.

SETTING THE RESEARCH AGENDABased on the review of the literature, the following section identi-fies the future research agenda from within the Australian con-struction industry context and the authors recommend that there is a need for the testing of applicability of the current instruments to measure team integration. It is recommended to further explore the following areas of research classification:

• Dimensions of team integration (what is it?)

• Implementation strategies (how to do it?)

• Antecedents (critical success factors, barriers)

• Impacts of team integration on project outcomes (how to measure project outcomes?)

Other research areas of integration have also been classified in literature [20]. For example, some studies have considered integration from the following four inter-related perspectives:

1. Aspects of vertical and/or horizontal integration in the construc-tion supply chain and in between construction delivery and the management of real estate facilities and related services;

2. Integration of information systems for product and processes, which is often approached through a strong IT orientation;

3. Integration of working practices and collaborative processes in the construction project organisation; and

4. Constructability, which is often dealt with from the perspective of specific practical advices for producing designs with a high level of constructability.

Given the identified further areas of research, the following section presents some discussion of some of the proposed re-search areas.

Dimensions of team integration (what is it?)Previous attempts have also focused on dimensions of team integration. For example, a study, though in the medical context, attempted to examine the collaborative processes and trans-disci-plinary integration, and developed tools for examining underlying processes of team science [9]. While the premise of that study


can be associated with the identification of the building blocks of integration, thus dealing with the ‘what is it?’ aspect, there is a further need to develop some insights from within the Australian construction industry context. The first approach suggested is that of revising some of the 15 existing items as contained within the list of trans-disciplinary integration items. For example, the following items of ‘discipline contribution’, ‘improves interven-tions’, ‘and changes research ideas’ could be changed to fit the construction context. Therefore, ‘discipline contribution’ could read as ‘construction or project team contribution’, whereas ‘im-proves intervention’ could read as ‘improves project performance or delivery’. The ‘changes research ideas’ could be renamed to read as ‘changes working ethics’.

The second approach suggested in the refinement process of the measurement instrument is that of ‘dropping items’ or ‘retaining them’. Previous studies have employed this method [29]. For example, unless an equivalent item could be suggested within the construction context, the following item(s) of ‘fewer publications’ as employed within the instrument might have to be deleted altogether [9]. On the other hand, the ‘behavioural integration’ and ‘cohesion’ sub-instruments could be retained as they align and resonate with the construction context [25]. For example the sub-item within the ‘behavioural integration’ reads as follows: “communication among team members can best be described as open and fluid ...”, whereas the three ‘cohesion’ sub-instrument items of ‘all members are fully integrated in our team’, ‘there is a personal attraction between the members of our team’, and ‘team members are strongly attached to this project’ all easily fit within the advocated construction group dynamics. Some studies have also suggested that inter-team information dependencies contribute to programme success [22].

Implementation strategies (how to do it?)Some studies have proposed that future research should include the extension of concepts integrative mechanisms within the construction context [22]. One such suggestion would be the development of mechanisms for the classification of integration implementation levels. Such a study would be aimed at exploring and identifying how advanced Australian construction organisa-tions are in implementing these integration measures. The process of implementation, which could be closely aligned to the identi-fication of critical success factors has been applied before [21]. However, despite the current level of research on critical success factors (CSF), there is still further need for understanding the ‘di-rect and indirect’ complex effects and the individual contributory effects of these CSF to the overall implementation process. It is proposed to use structural equation modelling (SEM) to identify the contributory effect of the critical success factors of integration towards effective project delivery.

It is beyond the scope of this study to demonstrate how in-struments related to the other proposed areas of research and future direction could be adapted. However given the suggestions provided within the first two of the four identified research areas, themes or strands (vis a vis, ‘dimensions of team integration’ and ‘implementation strategies’), the authors suggest that in order to proceed with the identification of existing instruments, there is a need to provide the justification (rationale) for selection of existing measures and the methods (i.e. dropping items or revising existing items) that would refine the instruments.

Measurement of integration (how to do it?)Further research on the measurement of integration could further be extended to include the identification of challenges as high-lighted by previous studies [3,30]. One such example would the challenges associated with the measurement of the effectiveness of team integration. However, the difficulties associated with this ap-proach should be acknowledged. For example, some studies have established that measuring system integration project performance is not simple [24]. One of the obvious difficulties is associated with time lag analysis, which would need to be undertaken to ascertain the effectiveness of integration between commencement

and completion of a project. This would certainly be best served through adoption of longitudinal studies. One obvious drawback would be retaining the same project team throughout the period of study given the fragmented nature of the construction industry.

CONCLUSIONThis study set out to identify and discuss the key conceptual and empirical issues affecting ‘integration’, and that these should be considered in the measurement of integration within the context of the Australian construction industry. An extensive literature review was conducted in order to understand the concept, affect-ing factors and mitigation measures. Based on a literature review, some knowledge gaps were evident resulting in the potential classification of research areas within the Australian construction industry context. The emergent four identified research areas, themes or strands could thus contribute towards our knowledge of integration.

REFERENCES[1] Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010. Value of works done:

states and territories, Engineering Construction Activity, Australian Bureau of Statistics, September 2010, <http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTASs> accessed 30th December 2010.

[2] Kaarpetrovic, S. and Willborn, W. 1998. “Concepts of integration of quality and environment quality and envi-ronmental management systems”, The TQM Magazine, 10(3), pp.204-213.

[3] Baiden, B.K., Price, A.D.F. and Dainty, A.R.J. 2006. “The extent of team integration within construction projects”, International Journal of Project Management, 24(1), pp.13-23.

[4] Kirsila, J., Hellstrom, M., and Wikstrom, K. 2007. “Inte-gration as a project management concept: A study of the commissioning process in industrial deliveries”, Interna-tional Journal of Project Management, 25, pp.714-721.

[5] Smith, A.D. and Offodile, O.F. 2008. “Strategic importance of team integration issues in product development pro-cesses to improve manufacturability”, Team Performance Management, 14(5/6), pp.269-292.

[6] Cheng, C-Y., Sanchez-Burks, J. and Lee, F. 2008. “Tak-ing Advantage of Differences: Increasing Team Innovation through Identity Integration”, Diversity and Groups, 11, pp.55-73.

[7] Akintoye, A. and Main, J. 2007. “Collaborative relation-ships in construction: the UK contractors’ perception”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 14(6), pp.597-617.

[8] Blayse, A.M. and Manley, K. 2004. “Key influences on construction innovation”, Construction Innovation, 4(3), pp.143-154.

[9] Masse, L.C., Moser, R.P., Stokols, D., Brandie, K.T., Marcus, S.E., Morgan, G.D., Hall, K.L., Croyle, R.T., and Trochin, W.M. 2008. “Measuring collaboration and trans-disciplinary integration in team science”, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), S151 – S160.

[10] Ochieng, E.G. and A.D.F. Price, A.D.F. 2009. “Framework for managing multicultural project teams”, Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, 16(6), pp.527-543.

[11] Butcher, D.C.A. and Sheehan, M.J. 2010. “Excellent contractor performance in the UK construction industry”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 17(1), pp.35-45.

[12] Dulaimi, M.F., Ling, F.Y.Y., Ofori, G., and De Silva, N. 2002. “Enhancing integration and innovation in construction”, Building Research & Information, 30(4), pp.237-247.

[13] Faniran, OO, Love, PED, Treloar, G, and Anumba, CJ 2001. “Methodological issues in design-construction integration”, Logistics Information Management, 14(5/6), pp.421-426.


[14] Boyle, T.A., Kumar, U., and Kumar, V. 2005a. “Organizational contextual determinants of cross-functional NPD team sup-port”, Team Performance Management, 11(½), pp.27-39.

[15] Boyle, T.A., Kumar, V., and Kumar, U. 2005b. “Concurrent engineering teams I: organizational determinants of usage”, Team Performance Management, 11(7/8), 263-279.

[16] Boyle, T.A., Kumar, V., and Kumar, U. 2006. “Concurrent engineering teams II: performance consequences of usage”, Team Performance Management, 12(5/6), pp.125-137.

[17] Kratzer, J., Leenders, R.Th. A.J. and Van Engelen, J.M.L. 2004. “A delicate managerial challenge: how cooperation and integration affect the performance of NPD teams”, Team Performance Management, 10(½), pp.20-25.

[18] Johnson, R. and Staughton, R. 2009. “Establishing and developing strategic relationships – the role of the operations managers”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 29(6), pp.564-590.

[19] Kumaraswamy, M.M., Ling, F.Y.Y., Anvuur, A.M., and Rah-man, M.M. 2007. “Targeting relationally integrated teams for sustainable PPPS”, Engineering, Construction and Archi-tectural Management, 14(6), pp.581-596.

[20] Jorgensen, B., and Emmitt, S. 2009. “Investigating the integration of design and construction from a “lean” perspec-tive”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.225-240.

[21] Koutsikouri, D., Austin, S. and Dainty, A. 2008. “Critical success factors in collaborative multi-disciplinary design projects”, Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 6(3), pp.198-226.

[22] Browning, T.R. 1998. “Integrative Mechanisms for Multi team Integration: Findings from Five Case Studies”, Regular Papers, 95-112, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

[23] Hong, Han-KuK, Kim, Jae-Sik, Kim,T., and Leem, Byung-Hak. 2008. “The effect of knowledge on system integra-

tion project performance”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, 108(3), pp.385-404.

[24] Cheng, C-Y. and Lee, F. 2009. “Multiracial Identity In-tegration: Perceptions of Conflict and Distance among Multiracial Individuals”, Journal of Social Issues, 65(1), pp.51-68.

[25] Magni, M., Proserpio, L., Hoegl, M. and Provera, B. 2009. “The role of team behavioral integration and cohesion in shaping individual improvisation”, Research Policy, 38, pp.1044-1053.

[26] Maurer, I. 2009. “How to build trust in inter-organizational projects: The impact of project staffing and project re-wards on the formation of trust, knowledge acquisition and product innovation”, International Journal of Project Management, 28, pp.629-637.

[27] Maqsood, T. and Finegan, A.D. 2009. “A knowledge management approach to innovation and learning in the construction industry”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2(2), pp.297-307.

[28] Jefferies, M., Brewer, G., Rowlinson, S., Cheung, F. and Sattchell, A. 2006. “Project alliances in the Australian construction industry: a case study of a water treatment project”. In: Symposium on CIB W92: sustainability and value through construction procurement, 29 November – 2 December, Digital World Centre, Salford.

[29] Chileshe, N. 2004. The Application of TQM within Small and Medium Sized Construction-Related Organisations, Unpublished PhD Thesis, School of Environment, Sheffield Hallam University.

[30] Baiden, B.K. and Price, A.D.F. 2010. “The effect of integra-tion on project delivery effectiveness”, International Journal of Project Management, 29(2), pp.129-136.


ABSTRACTPurpose: The aim of this paper is to examine the causes and effect of rework occurring in construction projects so that effective containment and reduction strategies can be developed.

Methodology: Case studies were conducted on purposive selected construction projects based in Cape Town to establish the causes and effect of rework. Specifically, qualitative data was collected by means of observation of physical works, semi-structured interviews with relevant parties directly involved in site opera-tions including the contractor’s management team, consultants and subcontractors, and site instruction record documents were analysed.

Findings: It was revealed that changes initiated by the client and the design team due to errors and omissions, poor co-ordination and integration among the design team were the major contribut-ing factors to rework. Moreover, constructability problems, lack of skills and emphasis on time and cost aggravated the occurrence of rework on site. It was also established that rework has direct and indirect consequences such as cost for redesign, cost of demolition, litigation cost, poor morale, de-motivation and loss of market share in construction projects.

Limitations: Only two multiple storey educational facilities were analysed and as a result the reported findings cannot be gener-alised. In addition, causal histories for identified rework events tended to be grounded in the views of the contractors and as result there is a potential for bias to exist. However, the findings reported are akin to what the normative literature has reported.

Value: The study suggests that design and construction firms must develop organisational measurement systems to track rework. It is only through determining its frequency and cost that effective strategies for its containment and reduction can be identified.

KEYWORDSCauses, construction, errors, omissions, rework.

INTRODUCTIONThe construction industry has been heavily criticised for its performance and productivity with cost and schedule overruns becoming a norm [1]. A significant factor that has been identified as contributing to this setback is rework. It is a non-value adding activity and can be defined as the “unnecessary effort of redoing an activity that was inaccurately done the first time” [2]. Rework can be as high as 12,4% of the total project cost [2] and can contribute to increase total project costs by 10% [3]. Such costs could, however, be substantially higher as they did not account

FIELD DIAGNOSIS OF CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF REWORK IN HIGHER EDUCATION RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES

Eric Kwame Simpeh*, Ruben Ndihokubwayo**, Peter E.D. Love***

Department of the Built Environment, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, P.O. Box 1906, Bellville 7535, South Africa

*MTech Student, [email protected], Tel No. +27 21 959 6317**Junior Lecturer, [email protected], Tel No. +27 21 959 6845

***Department of Construction Management, School of Built Environment, Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia, John Curtin Distinguished Professor, [email protected]

for schedule delays, litigation costs and other intangible costs of poor quality [4,5,6]. Indirect cost of rework could be as much as six times the cost of rectification [2]. While rework has been identified as a problematic issue in projects, there remains limited knowledge about its causes and effects in construction projects. With this in mind, this paper aims to determine the causes and effect of rework that occur during construction so that effective containment and reduction strategies can be developed.

SOURCES OF REWORKRework arises from various sources such as errors (slips, lapses, mistakes and omissions) and changes. Errors are unintentional deviations from correct and acceptable practice, and therefore, are avoidable [7]. However, omissions are deliberate acts and are essentially “failures to follow due procedure when undertaking a task” [8]. Design related rework in the form of change orders is the major source of rework in construction projects [9,10,11,12,13]. In fact, a change is essentially a directed action that alters current established requirements. While changes can be readily accounted for in terms of direct impact, errors on the other hand, remain a hidden and unknown nemesis within projects [11].

ErrorsIn a study of nine large industrial construction projects, it was found that rework originating from the design error contributed an average of 79% of total rework cost [14]. Errors are often not immediately identifiable and only become evident after a period of incubation in the system [15,16]. The extent of rework required depends on how long the error has remained unnoticed. For instance, a dimensional error or spatial conflict contained within design documentation may not arise until the project is being physically constructed on site [16,17,18].

Omission errors arise when the mental process of action control is subjected to strain or distraction [19]. In fact, omission errors are a result of pathogens within a system that translate into er-ror provoking conditions within the firm and project. Examples include time pressure, understaffing, fatigue and inexperience [20]. Unfortunately, latent conditions contribute to unworkable relationships and procedures as well as design and construction deficiencies consequently contribute to rework [20].

Failure to undertake procedural tasks during the design process [21,22,23] and continual design reuse [24] are leitmotivs that emerge as practices contributing to omission errors. The work practices implemented by organisations can provoke similar er-rors, regardless of the skills and experiences of the people involved in a project. For example, low design fees contribute to design checks, reviews and verifications being omitted by architects and engineers [25].


CAUSES OF REWORKThe causes of rework can be categorised into different groups such as client-related, design-related and contractor-related, and subcontractor-related [26]. A brief overview of rework causes are presented hereinafter.

Client-related factorsClients and their project team members must communicate and work together in harmony if projects are to be delivered on or ahead of time [27]. Client-related factors contributing to rework include lack of experience and knowledge of design and construc-tion process; lack of funding allocated for site investigation; lack of involvement in the project; inadequate briefing; poor commu-nication with design consultants; and inadequacies in contract documentation [28].

Design-related factorsLack of design co-ordination and integration between project team members can lead to design deficiencies and exacerbate the causes of rework. Source of design-related rework is attributable to communication problems [12]. Ineffective use of information technology in managing and communicating information aggra-vates the amount of rework that occurs in a project [29].

A study to quantify the causes and cost of rework on construction of residential homes and industrial warehouses revealed that poor co-ordination and integration between design team members hin-dered the flow of information among them [30]. It was revealed that engineers used CAD technologies and the architects used manual systems to document their designs [30]. As a result, some drawings were issued with dimensional errors and miss-ing information [30]. Indeed, reducing design fees can result in inadequate contract documentation being produced, which often results in rework, claims and contractual disputes [31].

Contractor-related factors The inability of many supervisors to plan work, communicate with workers, and direct activities adequately contributes to rework [32]. Site management team and subcontractors project success depends on the effectiveness of the main contractor’s construc-tion planning efforts [33,27,34,35]. It has been identified that projects without a quality system in place can experience a 10% cost increase due to rework. Other factors identified contributing to rework includes [36]:

• Setting-out errors as a result of misreading dimensions on the working drawings [12];

• Staff turnover and reallocation to other projects [13]: for in-stance increased defects and poor workmanship may arise as a result of excessive workload, multitasking and unwarranted pressures for early completion; and

• Failure to provide protection to works [10]. For example, failure to provide protection during painting work whereby paint splashes on floor finishes and sanitary fittings. Failure to protect certain parts of a building during alteration works.

In the case of subcontractors, specific factors contributing to rework included: inadequate supervision; damage to other trade’s work due to carelessness; low skill level of construction artisans and labour; and poor use or choice of materials [13,37,38].

EFFECTS OF REWORKRework, specifically in the form of changes can have an effect on the aesthetics and functional aspects of the building, the scope as well as the nature of work, and its operational aspects [11]. It can also adversely affect an individual, organisation and proj-ect’s performance and productivity [39,2]. When an individual is subjected to having to work longer due to errors, changes or

omissions, fatigue and stress may emerge, which can increase the likelihood of further rework occurring [40,41]. At the organisation level, it has been identified to cause reduced profit, diminished professional image, inter-organisational conflict, loss of future work and poor morale as indirect effects of rework [42]. At the project level, work inactivity such as waiting time, idle time, travelling time and end-user dissatisfaction were identified as indirect consequences of rework.

METHODOLOGYThere has been limited research undertaken in South Africa about the causal nature of rework in construction projects [43]. As a result an exploratory research approach was adopted to determine the causes and effects of rework.

Purposive sampling method was used to select two construc-tion projects based in Cape Town. These projects were selected on pragmatic considerations, namely their availability. Purposive sampling consists of handpicking purportedly typical or interesting cases [44]. Purposive sampling is tagged as theoretical sampling [45,46]. It is a useful sampling method consisting of receiving information from a sample of the population that one thinks knows most about the subject matter [45]. In fact, there is no ideal number of cases that should be undertaken [47].

Semi-structured interviews with relevant parties include the site management team, consultants and subcontractors. Observations of physical building and site documentary sources such as site instructions, revised working drawings and progress reports were used. A framework of questions for the interview was designed to collect information relating to the causes of rework on site, the influence of human resources capability and quality management practice on the occurrence of rework.

Other information included the effect of rework on the project’s critical path, their company’s and overall project performance. Respondents were first informed of the focus of the interview prior to meeting. This assisted the respondents to prepare adequately for the interview in advance. Each interview was tape-recorded and subsequently transcribed. Also, direct observations were made by the researcher and notes were taken with the aid of a notebook and pen to derive data.

FINDINGSCase description – Project AProject A consisted of a two-storey university residential apartment situated in the suburb of Bellville in Cape Town. The total floor area is 3 800m2. It contained a total of 200-beds, a communal kitchen, TV room and an open courtyard with a landscaped area in the middle. The contract value for the development was R30-million with a contract period of 14 months.The project was procured using a competitive tender with bill of quantities and working drawings, with the client employing an architect as the project manager to act as their development representative. The contractor’s contract manager and quantity surveyor were interviewed on this project. The interviews were conducted on site in the contract manager’s office and quantity surveyor’s office respectively, and lasted 60 minutes.

CAUSES OF REWORKChanges initiated by parties involvedAccording to the contract manager about 40% of the changes initi-ated on site constituted rework. An example of a change requested from the architect stated “a decision has been made regarding the type of pipe to be installed; it must be either HDPE or PVC pipe”.

The contract manager mentioned that during that stage they had already done the surface bed preparation to receive the concrete bed when this decision was taken and as a result the plumber had to excavate through the sub-base in order to lay the pipe and this basically affected the plumber and civil work contractor.


Design errors and omissionsThe contract manager stated that design errors and omissions had been made by the design team. The contract manager attributed the errors and omissions to lack of information flow between the architect and structural engineer. The contract manager provided an example where the engineer’s drawing layout indicated col-umns needed to be off-shutter finished whereas the architect’s drawings provided no indication about the required finish.

The contractor cast columns according to engineer’s drawing. However, during a site visit, the architect realised that columns exposed to the walkway area were not off-shutter finished. As a result, the architect issued an instruction for those columns to be skimmed and plastered. The contract manager also stated that, in some cases, sleeves were installed in the slab using the structural drawing, but subsequent to that, the contractor received drawings from the electrical engineer that indicated that the sleeves already installed must be removed.

Construction errorAccording to the contract manager some changes were initiated by the contractor which constituted rework. These changes were initiated as result of construction error. The contract manager stated that during the erection of the perimeter facing brick wall on one side of the building, it was realised that the cavity between the rough and facing brickwork was 10mm instead of 50mm.The contract manager admitted that it was due to a setting out error on the part of the main contractor’s supervisor.

Effect of reworkThe contract manager indicated that the architect was dissatis-fied with the cavity between the facing and rough brickwork, as it was 10mm instead of 50mm. A summary of the causes and effect of rework experienced from the case study for Project A can be seen in Figure 1.

The contract manager pointed out that the cost associated with redoing the facing brick wall to ensure that the cavity was 50mm was born by the contractor. However, the quantity surveyor revealed that there are no mechanisms in place in capturing the rework cost on site. According to the contract manager the rework that occurred on site had adversely influenced the morale of subcontractors and labourers. For example, the plumber’s resources had been stretched due to the amount of rework that they had incurred.

The contact manager stated that overtime and disruption were impacting the plumber and other trades. As the roof was being installed, it was revealed that the electrical consultant, for example, did not design the conduit root for the fire evacuation.

As a result the architect had to employ another organisation to do the design work immediately, which resulted in the electrical contractor having to work over a weekend at considerable extra cost to the project.

Case description – Project BProject B consisted of a seven-storey educational facility situated in Observatory, a suburb of Cape Town. The total floor area was 6 000m2. It contained, amongst others, 887 units with en-suite bathroom, 91-kitchens, two courtyards with a central communal area and underground parking. The project was a competitive tender with bill of quantities, the contract value for the develop-ment was R286,6-million with a contract period of 22 months. A project manager was employed by the client to act as their representative. The following people were interviewed: contract manager; planner; junior site manager; quantity surveyor; brick-layer foreman; and the junior architect from the design firm. The interviews ranged from 15 to 50 minutes.

CAUSES OF REWORKChanges initiated by parties involvedAccording to the contract manager and planner changes were initiated by the design team. The planner stated that one such example was made by the architect who specified changes to window sizes in a section on the first floor. However, all the win-dows were in place when the revised drawings were received. An instruction was issued by the architect to remove all windows and replace them with new ones in accordance with the new revi-sion. At the time the research was being conducted, the contract manager indicated that the principal agent had issued their 16th revised drawings for the services drawing due to major changes in the services duct.

Design errorsInterviewees stated that design errors and omissions on the part of the mechanical engineer resulted in clashes and changes in services and as a result some portions of the brick wall were removed to accommodate the service ducts.

Construction errorsInterviewees stated that there had been construction errors caused by the contractor and subcontractor which required rework. The junior site manager stated that some columns were demolished as a result of honeycombing after casting. The junior site manager stated that the concreters were not sure as to how to vibrate columns of sizes 1 000 x 300 mm since they were used to cast-

Figure1: Cause-effect diagram for Project A.

Inadequate supervision

Lack of information fl ow Setting out errors

Poor integration Constructability error

Of the design team

Lack of experience

Changes and reviews

Construction planning and

control

Contribute to rework

Human resource capability


ing columns of 300 x 300mm. Furthermore, it was stated that two more columns had to be demolished due to setting out error as some columns were 25mm out of place. Inexperience on the part of the leading hand, and lack of co-ordination between the leading hand and surveyor were identified as contributing factors in this instance.

Effect of reworkAccording to the contractor’s quantity surveyor, there is no mechanism in place for tracking rework cost. Figure 2 illustrates the causes and effect of rework experienced in the case study for Project B. The planner stated that some members of the design team were dissatisfied in the beginning as the drawings were not strictly followed.

The plumbing consultant was particularly dissatisfied with the work of the plumbing subcontractor. For instance, the gradient for the surface water drainage in one of the court yards was incorrect due to setting out error on the part of the subcontractor.

The contractor was also dissatisfied due to many changes on the part of the design team. The site agent stated that morale of workers for certain trades especially bricklayers, plumbers and electricians were affected by the rework.

The contact manager further stressed that sometimes rework lead to dilution of supervision on site (thus supervisors become confused when there is any incident of rework because they have to re-plan the work). In terms of litigation the planner suggested that a contractual dispute was materialising as a result of rework with regard to the roof construction as a number of design defi-ciencies had occurred.

CONCLUSIONThere are no significant differences in the causes of rework be-tween Project A and Project B. In both projects it was found that rework was attributable to changes initiated by the design team and design errors originating from poor detailing. Omissions due to poor co-ordination and integration amongst design team members and errors during the construction stage were also identified.

Lack of experience with various building types and construction techniques were apparent in Project B. In this instance, the contractor had a vast amount of experience with constructing industrialised buildings comparative to high rise buildings. Train-ing and knowledge are immediate issues that contractors need to grapple with in order to reduce on site rework. Unless an effort is made to improve skills and knowledge, reputation, delays and disruption and loss of profit will become products of rework that arises on site.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThe authors would like to thank the construction firms for their participation in this investigation. Without their co-operation and the full support of senior management and the contracts manag-ers involved, this investigation could not have been undertaken.

We would like to acknowledge the financial support provided by the Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT).

REFERENCES[1] Love, P.E.D. 2011. Plugging the gaps between optimism

bias and strategic misrepresentation and infrastructure cost overruns. The Twelfth East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction (EASEC-12) 26th-28th January, Hong Kong.

[2] Love, P. E.D. 2002a. Influence of project type and procure-ment Method on Rework Costs in Building Construction Projects, Journal of Construction Engineering and Man-agement, vol. 128, no. 1, pp.1-29.

[3] Davis, K., Ledbetter, W.B. and Burati, J.L. 1989. Mea-suring design and construction quality costs. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 115, no. 3, pp.385-400.

[4] Ackermann, F., Eden, C. and Williams, T. 1997. Modelling litigation: Mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches, Interfaces, vol. 27, no. 2, pp.4865.

[5] Cooper, K.G. 1980. Naval shipyard production: A claim settled and a framework built, Interfaces, vol. 10, no. 6, pp.30-36.

[6] Eden, C., Williams, T. and Howick, S. 2000. The role of feedback dynamics in disruption and delay on the nature of disruption and delay in major projects, Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 51, no. 3, pp.291-300.

[7] Kaminetzky D. 1991. Design and Construction Failures: Lessons from Forensic Investigations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

[8] Wills, T.H. and Willis, W.D. 1996. A quality performance management system for industrial and construction engineering projects, International Journal of Qual. Rel. Management., vol. 13, no. 9, pp.38-48.

[9] Abdul-Rahman, H. 1993. The management and cost of quality for civil engineering projects, PhD thesis, Univer-sity of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST), Manchester.

Figure 2: Cause-effect diagrams for Project B.

Inadequate supervision

Errors and omissions Setting out errors

Late design changes Poor communication

Error

Inadaquate training

Changes and reviews

Construction planning and

control

Contribute to rework

Human resource capability

Constructability

insuffi cient skill level


[10] Barber, P., Sheath, D., Tomkins, C. and Graves, A. 2000.The cost of quality failures in major civil engineering projects, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, vol. 17, nos. 4/5, pp.479-492.

[11] Burati, J.L. Farrington, J.J. and Ledbetter, W.B. 1992. Causes of quality deviations in design and construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 118, no 1, pp.34-49.

[12] Josephson, P.E. and Hammarlund, Y. 1999. The causes and costs of defects in construction. A study of seven building projects, Automation in Construction, vol. 8, no. 6, pp.681-642.

[13] Love, P.E.D., Mandal, P. and Li, H. 1999. Determining the causal structure of rework, Construction Management and Economics, vol. 17, no. 4, pp.505-515.

[14] Construction Industry Institute CII. 1989. Costs of quality deviations in design and construction.” RS 10-1 (Jan.).The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

[15] Busby, J.S. and Hughes, E.J. 2004. Projects, pathogens, and incubation periods, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 22, pp.425-434.

[16] Cooper, K.G. 1993. The rework cycle: Benchmarking for the project manager, Project Management Journal, vol. 24, no. 1, pp.17-22.

[17] Rodrigues, A. and Bowers, J. 1996. The role of system dynamics in project management, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 14, no. 4, pp.213-220.

[18] Rodrigues, A and Williams, T.M. 1998. System dynamics in project management: Assessing the impacts of client behaviour on project performance, Journal of the Opera-tional Research Society, vol. 49, no. 1, pp.2-15.

[19] Reason, J. 2002. Combating omission errors through task analysis and good reminder, Quality and Safety in Health Care, vol. 11, no. 1, pp.40-44.

[20] Reason, J. 2000. Human error: Models and management, British Medical Journal, vol. 320, no. 7237, pp.768-770.

[21] Busby, J.S. (2001) Adaptation failures that cause error in technical organizations, Human System Management, vol. 20, pp.301-312.

[22] Andi, S. and Minato, T. 2003a. Representing causal mechanism of defective designs: A system approach considering human errors, Construction Management and Economics, vol. 21, no 3, pp.297-305.

[23] Andi, A. and Minato, T. 2003b. Design documents in the Japanese construction industry: Factors influencing and impacts on construction process, International. Journal of Project Management, vol. 21, no 7, pp.537-546.

[24] Busby, J.S. 1999. An assessment of post project reviews, Project Management Journal, vol. 30, no. 3, pp.23-29.

[25] Love, P.E.D., Edwards, D.J., Irani, Z. and Walker, D.H.T. 2009. Project pathogens: The anatomy of omission errors in construction and engineering projects, Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 56, no. 3, pp.425-435.

[26] Love, P.E.D. and Edwards, D.J. 2004. Determinants of rework in building construction projects engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, vol. 11, no. 4, pp.259-274

[27] Walker, D.H.T. 1994. An investigation into the factors that determine building construction time performance, unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Building and Construction Economics, Faculty of Environmental Design and Construction, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.

[28] Palaneeswaran, E. 2006. Reducing rework to enhance project performance levels, Proceedings of the one day

seminar on recent developments in project management in Hong Kong, 12th May.

[29] Austin, S. Baldwin, A. and Newton, A. 1994. Manipulating the flow of design information to improve the program-ming of building design. Construction Management and Economics vol. 12, no. 5, pp.445-455.

[30] Love, P. E.D. and Li, H. 2000. Quantifying the causes and costs of rework in construction. Construction Management and Economics vol.18, no. 4, pp.479-490.

[31] Love, P.E.D., Davis, P.R., Ellis, J. M. and Cheung, S.O. 2010. Dispute causation: Identification of pathogenic influences. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, vol. 17, no. 4, pp.404-423

[32] Business Roundtable. 1982. Modern Management Sys-tems. A Report of Construction Industry Cost Effectiveness Project. The Business Roundtable, New York.

[33] Ireland, V. 1985. The role of managerial actions in the cost, time and quality performance of high rise commercial projects, Construction Management and Economics, vol. 3, no. 1, pp.59-87.

[34] Chan, D.W.M. 1998. Modelling construction durations for public housing projects in Hong Kong, unpublished PhD thesis, The University of Hong Kong.

[35] Faniran, O.O., Love, P.E.D. and Li, H. (1999) Optimal al-location of construction planning resources, ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 125, no. 5, pp.311-319.

[36] Cusack, D. 1992. Implementation of ISO 9000 in construction, ISO 9000Forum Symposium, Gold Coast, Australia.

[37] Josephson, P.E., Larsson, B. and Li, H. 2002. Illustra-tive benchmarking rework and rework costs in Swedish construction industry, ASCE Journal of Management in Engineering, vol.18 no. 2, pp.76-83.

[38] Love, P.E.D. and Smith, J. 2003. Benchmarking, bench-action and bench- learning: rework mitigation in projects, Journal of Management in Engineering, vol. 19, no. 4, pp.147-159.

[39] Chan, D.W.M. and Kumaraswamy, M.M. 1997. A com-parative study of causes of time overruns in Hong Kong construction projects, International Journal of Project Management, vol. 15, no. 1, pp.55-63.

[40] Abdul-Hamid, T.K. and Madnick, S.E. 1991. Software project dynamics − an integrated approach, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

[41] Love, P.E.D., Mandal, P., Smith, J., and Li, H. 2000. Modelling the dynamics of design error induced rework in construction, Construction Management and Economics, vol. 18, no. 5, pp.575-586.

[42] Love, P. E.D. 2002b. Auditing the indirect consequences of rework in construction: a case based approach, Managerial Auditing Journal, vol. 17, no. 3, pp.138-146.

[43] Rhodes B. and Smallwood J.J. 2003. Defects and rework in South Africa construction projects. Proceedings of the first CIBD post graduate conference, Port Elizabeth, South Africa, 12-14 October 2003, pp.228-236.

[44] Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. and Tight, M. 2001. How to re-search 2nd edition, Buckingham: Open University Press.

[45] Walliman, N. 2005. Your Research Project 2nd edition, London: Sage Publications.

[46] O’Leary, Z. 2004. The Essential Guide to Doing Research, London: Sage Publications.

[47] Yin, R. 1984. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.


ABSTRACTPurpose: The purpose of this paper is to assess the contribution of programmes introduced by the Prime Minister’s Office, Regional Administrative and Local Government (PMO-RALG) to improving construction contracts performance in Local Government Authori-ties (LGAs) in Kagera region.

Methodology: The case study research strategy was used to explore the contribution of PMO-RALG programmes in improving construction contracts performance in LGAs. Multiple sources of evidence were used to collect data for the case study and these include document reviews, questionnaires and interviews.

Findings: PMO-RALG introduced three programmes namely Capacity Developing Programme (CDP), Capacity Building Programme (CBP) and Local Government Capital Development programme (LGCDP). The study reveals that LGCDP works bet-ter followed by CBP and the CDP contribution was on average.

Limitations: Kagera is one of 22 regions of Tanzania Mainland; future research may be necessary to assess the contribution of these programmes in district councils of other regions.

Value: Programmes introduced for improved contracts perfor-mance in LGAs should be evaluated to establish their efficiency. Research findings of this study provide a snapshot of how these programmes have contributed to improved contract performance.

KEYWORDSLGA, strategies, construction, contract performance.

INTRODUCTIONIn 1996, the Government of Tanzania decided to restructure and downsize regional administration with the objective of making Local Government more efficient and effective. In a decision of restructuring, the Local Government, the Prime Minister’s Office of Regional Administrative and Local Government (PMO-RALG) was established and centred in Dodoma region. The PMO-RALG is charged with fostering efficiency and effectiveness functioning of LGAs. PMO-RALG facilitates the implementation of many con-tracts through LGAs and of a number of major government policies and strategies, which has a positive impact on local, social and economic development including the eradication of poverty as well as ensuring the quality of services provided to the public [1].

LGAs are autonomous local organisations that are smaller than the state and charged with, amongst others, the execution of de-velopment projects. In 1990s the government abolished the use of force accounts and required LGAs clients to use contractors [1]. However, this alternative approach could not make LGAs competent enough to manage development projects. The success or failure of any alternative service delivery arrangement is likely to depend on how well the LGAs are able to manage the procurement process [2].

Over the years there has been poor implementation of develop-ment projects in LGAs. As a result, PMO-RALG had to introduce

ASSESSMENT OF LGAS PROGRAMMES FOR IMPROVING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PERFORMANCE: CASE STUDY OF

KAGERA REGION DISTRICT COUNCILS

Geraldine J. Kikwasi

School of Construction Economics and Management, Ardhi University,P.O. Box 35176, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Tel No: +255 22 277 5929; Fax + 255 22 27 75391

Lecturer, [email protected]

programmes in LGAs to improve contracts’ performance. These include: Capacity Developing Programme (CDP); Capacity Building Programme (CBP); and Local Government Capital Development Programme (LGCDP).

The purpose of this study is to assess the contribution of programmes introduced by PMO-RALG in LGAs to improve con-struction contracts performance.

REVIEW OF LITERATUREContracting in Local Government AuthoritiesThe existence of LGAs is the result of decentralisation which relates to transferring or exchanging the power of planning and decision making by subsiding the administration power from central govern-ment to a local organisation [3]. LGAs in Tanzania are mandated to perform two main duties: administration, law and order; and economic, development and planning in their respective areas of jurisdiction [4]. In executing their duties, LGAs are expected to implement development projects through contracting. Central governments will mobilise funds from own sources and various development partners to finance development projects in LGAs. Most of the funds from the Central Government and donors such as the World Bank, United Nations, Embassies and other finan-ciers, are posted to LGAs where, different development projects have to be carried out [1].

In Tanzania PMORALG co-ordinates a number of programmes that are implemented in the LGAs. Four notable areas which at-tract the contracting services include [1]:

• Road Fund (RF), which disburses funds to the LGAs for road maintenance or construction;

• Local Government Transport Programme (LGTP), which is responsible for rehabilitation of roads in poor conditions in the LGAs;

• Primary Education Development Programme (PEDP), which facilitate the construction of primary school classrooms, toilets and teacher’s houses; and

• District Health Infrastructure Rehabilitation Component (DHIRC), which provides the funding for rehabilitation of health facilities and staff houses for government and non-profit dispensaries in the LGAs.

In the 1990s, the construction industry experienced several problems using force accounts. During that time there was a mushrooming of briefcase contractors who, having colluded with the LGA’s clients, were given jobs that they had no capacity to perform and these resulted in shoddy works and delays [1,5]. Upon realising the danger that was being faced by the govern-ment and the clients in particular, the government decided to end the above cited malfunctions in the contracting industry by [1]:

• Abolishing the use of force accounts and requiring the LGA’s clients to use contractors;

• Establishing the Contractors Registration Board (CRB) in 1997 through the Act no. 17 of 1997, which required all contractors to be registered if they were to operate legally; and


• Recognising the need for specialised types of work and ap-proaches hence the establishment of a specialised contrac-tors class−for example those to be engaged in labour based technology.

The abolition of force accounts and the requirement to use contracting services, necessitated LGAs to execute development projects via contracts. Government roles have changed from being a provider to a facilitator or enabler of development [2]. However, the use of contracting services could not immediately improve contract performance as there were other inherent problems.

A number of problems hindered improved performance in service delivery in LGAs between 1984 and 2000 and these include [4]: weak human resource capacity and management; weak leadership and poor management of the councils; short-age of properly qualified, disciplined and committed personnel; and lack of transparency and accountability in the conduct of councils business.

Contracting in LGAs is facing several challenges on the part of clients as well as contractors. Challenges facing LGA clients include [1]: low utilisation of resources due to inadequate num-ber of contractors, low quality works and inadequate capacity of some LGAs to manage contracts. Similarly, challenges facing LGAs contractors, which are almost common to all small and medium enterprises are [1,5,6,7]: lack of finance and financial support; shortage of construction equipment; shortage of skilled labour; inadequate management skills; unfavourable regulatory environment; and high cost of doing business.

PMO-RALG programmesFollowing poor implementation of development projects in LGAs, PMO-RALG had to introduce programmes in LGAs to improve contracts performance. These include: CDP; CBP; and LGCDP.

Capacity Developing Programme (CDP)This programme is aimed at enhancing the implementation of development projects in the country by the provision of strategic assistance and enables professionals in the LGAs to plan, procure, administer contracts, manage funds, build capacity through train-ing, technical assistance and exchange of experience by facilitat-ing participatory approach in decision making. By training and producing standard practice documents, this is aimed at improving LGAs construction contracts performance in a sustainable manner.

The programme is also of help to government initiatives in developing capacity and a reliable system of improving second-ary schools and health facilities, infrastructure rehabilitation, developing capacity of the district technical teams for efficient and effective monitoring of infrastructure.

The programme requires training for different professionals in the Council, taking into account addressing key areas in contract administration (District Engineer’s office, Procurement Officers, Tender Boards and Procurement Management Units). Also, it requires having CDP-Management for those who will work on management and planning, promotion of services, control of quality, human resources and capacity building. It will lead to improved performance.

Capacity Building Programme (CBP)This programme is aimed at capacitating LGA’s staff from village level to the districts by improving their skills and knowledge within their fields. Most of this training is on-the-job training and it is instructed that due to many reforms of the government institutions, the training should enable those staff to cope with these changes. It is in this programme that short courses like procurement, contract administration, project management, fi-nancial related matters, project planning, office documentations and human resources are undertaken.

Local Government Capital Development programme (LGCDP)This is a special programme intended to make LGAs more ac-countable for resource management and service delivery in their areas of jurisdiction. The programme is aimed at making LGAs work better regardless of an area’s wealth or location and poor and remote areas will benefit as much as urban ones with the help of Capacity Building Grants (CDGs) provided from the year 2004 to date. This is a component that provides LGAs with resources to help build their capacity to meet the pre-conditions, and manage the CDG in such a way that poverty reduction can be achieved since there is a strong link between poverty reduction and LGAs. Health, education and access to markets are the key areas in the reduction of poverty. It is LGAs that are responsible for contract-ing schools, health care, roads and bridges and ensuring the successfull implementation of these contracts.

Contract performance and indicatorsDischarge of obligations in any contract will lead to the evaluation of its performance. A contract is regarded as performing poorly if it fails to meet its objectives of time, cost, quality and any other requirements specified in the conditions of contract. A synonym for contracting performance is effectiveness−the degree of achieve-ment of objectives [8]. Projects are formed to accomplish objec-tives and performance is measured in terms of how well these objectives have been met. Criteria such as meeting project time, budget, technical specification and the mission to be performed are the top priorities of project objectives [8].

LGA’s clients and beneficiaries of LGA’s development projects have various ways of assessing project performance. A number of indicators for use in determining contract performance have been disclosed. These are [9,10,11,12,13]: value for money; client satisfaction of service and product; zero defects; being on time; within budget; meeting health and safety requirements; fit for their intended purposes over time and absence of legal claims; and profitability.

RESEARCH METHODSResearch designA case study research strategy was used to assess how various pro-grammes initiated by PMO-RALG have contributed in improving construction contracts performance in LGAs. The type of research followed in this study is mainly a descriptive research. Using this design, it is possible to gather information and inform on what is happening after implementation of various strategies by LGAs.

Research areaThe Kagera region has six district councils namely Bukoba Mu-nicipal, Bukoba Rural, Muleba, Karagwe, Ngara and Biharamulo. Three district councils of Bukoba Municipal, Bukoba Rural and Muleba were selected as the case study. They were selected due to their geographical location and easy accessibility as they are all located along the Bukoba - Biharamulo trunk road.

Data collection techniqueIn each of the three district councils considered under the case study, members who were involved in project procurement were earmarked as respondents for the study. These were: Heads of Department (HoD), Procurement Management Units (PMUs) and Tender Boards (TBs) members. Five members were selected from each unit (HoD, PMUs and TBs) in three district councils, a total of 45 expected responses. Multiple sources of evidence, namely document reviews, questionnaires and interviews were used to collect data for the study.

Documentary source of evidence involved review of documents such as contract documents, inspection reports, site meeting


minutes, correspondence files, and payment certificates. Question-naires were prepared and distributed by hand to the respondents in the three districts. Structured interviews were conducted us-ing the questions from the questionnaires. The purpose was to obtain responses from respondents who did not have time to fill in questionnaires or attend interviews.

A total of 31 responses from the three districts were received out of 45. This is equivalent to 68,9% of the population sample in the three districts. Table 1 summarises the actual responses.

S/N District CouncilAnticipated respondents Attained Responses % age

PMU HOD TB Total PMU HOD TB Total

1 Bukoba Municipal 5 5 5 15 5 4 2 11 73,32 Bukoba Rural 5 5 5 15 3 4 3 10 66,73 Muleba 5 5 5 15 4 4 3 10 66,7Total 15 15 15 45 12 12 8 31 68,9

Table 1: Responses from the three districts.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSPublic complaints on LGAs’ poor project performanceLGAs are very close to the communities and linked directly to the development of the nation since large numbers of people live in the rural areas where LGAs are situated. As a result, any project implemented by LGAs is expected to serve the community, the fail-ure of which may elevate complaints from the public. Responses on the existence of public complaints on contracts performance in LGAs in three district councils, are summarised in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Public complaints on LGAs’ poor project performance.

Results indicate that there are public complaints in all three district councils with the majority happening Muleba (31%) fol-lowed by Bukoba Municipal (27,6%) and Bukoba Rural (24,7%). During the interview, one HoD in one of the districts cited the project for the construction of a bridge that stopped in 2008 as a project that had been a source of complaints.

Project performance indicatorsThe public and clients at large set forth performance indicators that will inform on the contract’s conclusion. Respondents were requested to rank indicators to successful contract delivery. A three-point scale was used to indicate the importance attached to these indicators in ascertaining contract performance: 3 = high; 2 = medium; and 1 = low. See Table 2 for indicators for contract performance.

Based on the results in Table 2, four indicators ranked high on average that are used for assessing contract performance are: value for money; client and user satisfaction; project functional-ity and fit for purpose; and level of effectiveness (achievement of envisaged outcomes).

Challenges contributing to poor performance in the LGAsThere are challenges facing both LGA clients and contractors in executing contracts. These challenges were listed for ranking by

Indicator N 3 2 1 M SD R

Percentages

Value for money 31 67,7 32,3 - 2.9 0,03 1Client and user satisfaction 31 71,0 19,4 9,6 2.8 0,05 2Project functionality and fit for purpose 31 64,5 32,3 3,2 2.8 0,05 3Level of effectiveness 31 61,3 29,0 9,7 2.7 0,07 4Generate positive reputation 31 32,3 58,0 9,7 2.4 0,50 5Free from defects 31 32,2 31,9 25,8 2.2 0,50 6No legal claims 31 29,0 32,3 38,7 2.2 0,50 7Learning and exploitation 31 12,9 71,0 16,1 2.1 0,41 8

Table 2: Performance indicators.

LGAs clients. A four-point scale was used to assess the extent to which these challenges affect contract performance: 4 = high; 3 = medium; 2 = low; and 1 = none. The results are shown in Table 3.

Responses reveal that all three listed challenges affect con-tract performance on average in LGAs (mean score between 3,2 and 2,6) with insufficient funds to run projects at the top of the list. This was disclosed by a number of interviewees: in many cases project execution will stop to wait for release of funds from PMO-RALG.

On the other hand, contractors in LGAs are facing challenges of inadequate capital and shortage of construction equipment − both ranked high (mean score = 3,6) followed by inadequate skilled personnel.

Contribution of introduced programmes to contract performancePMO-RALG introduced three programmes which in a way could contribute to improved contract performance in LGAs. These programmes were: CDP, CBP, and LGCDP. A three-point scale was used to rank the performance of each of the three programmes: 3 = high; 2 = medium; and 1 = none.

Table 4 indicates that among three strategies, LGCDP’s con-tribution to improve contract performance is high (mean score = 2,9) followed by CBP (mean score = 2,6). It was revealed that LGCDP had been effective because the programme provided funds for undertaking projects on condition that councils ensured good performance in development projects, particularly ensuring that projects were performed as planned, that funds were not misused, public procurement laws and regulations were followed and value for money was obtained.

Moreover, CBP strategy was well implemented but funding was insufficient to accommodate many experts to be capacitated. It was also revealed that CDP performed on average (mean score = 2,2) as it lacked the special grant to support the programme compared to LGCDP and CBP.


Challenge N 4 3 2 1 M SD R

Percentages

LGA Clients

Insufficient funds to run projects 29 37,9 44,8 17,3 0 3,2 0,5 1

Inadequate capacity of some LGAs to manage contracts 29 27,6 21.0 37,9 3,5 2,8 0,7 2

Insufficient funds to run the project 29 23 41 25 11 2,6 0,8 3

Contractors

Inadequate capital 29 69 24,1 0 6,9 3,6 0,1 1

Shortage of construction equipment 29 62,1 31 6,9 0 3,6 0,2 2

Inadequate skilled personnel 29 48,3 31 20,7 0 3,3 0,5 3

Inadequate management skills 29 44,8 27,6 17,2 10,3 3,1 0,5 4

Table 3: Challenges facing LGA clients and contractors.

Strategy N 3 2 1 M SD R

Percentage

LGCDP 31 77,4 19,4 3,2 2,9 0,02 1

CBP 31 48,4 48,4 3,2 2,6 0,41 2

CDP 31 16,1 77,4 6,5 2,2 0,44 3

Table 4: Performance of LGA’s strategies.

Challenges facing LGA programmesImplementation of programmes introduced by PMO-RALG in LGAs is facing a number of challenges. Respondents were required to list the challenges. Based on the listing and assessment, four main challenges were drawn and assigned percentages. Figure 2 presents the results.

The majority (45,2%) indicated that lack of teamwork support among experts in LGAs is the most serious challenge followed by political influence (35,5%). On lack of teamwork support, it was disclosed by interviewees that in some cases planning of a project was done by the works department and the implementation done by the user department without involving the works depart-ment, which resulted into supervision difficulties. Likewise it was revealed that in many cases decisions on development projects were undertaken by councillors who were influenced by politics rather than the technicalities of projects.

Figure 2: Challenges facing LGA programmes.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONSPerformance of construction projects in surveyed LGAs has not been to the expectation of clients and the public at large due to a number of challenges namely: lack of teamwork support among experts in LGAs; political influence; and insufficient funds to run development projects. However, introduction of LGCD, CD and CB programmes have improved construction contracts performance significantly at varying levels. It is therefore recommended that requirements for each programme introduced in LGAs should be explored. Matters relating to finance, political influence and teamwork among programme implementers should be addressed prior to programme implementation.

REFERENCES[1] Musingi, R. 2007. Challenges facing contracting industry:

The experience of Local Government Authorities. In the proceeding of Contractors Annual Consultative meeting (10 Years of CRB: Empowering Contractors to Meet the Challenges Ahead), Dar es Salaam.

[2] Brown, T.L. and Potoski, M. 2003. Contract management capacity in municipal and county governments. Public Administration Review 63 (2): pp.136-147.

[3] Ferris, J.M. and Graddy, E. 1991. Production costs, transaction costs, and local government contractor choice. Economic Inquiry 24 (July): pp.541.

[4] Mcha, A. 2010. Participation of architects and quantity surveyor in development of Local Government Authorities. In the proceeding of Continuing Professional Develop-ment Seminar (The Impact of Building Industry in Global Climatic Changes), Dodoma.

[5] Materu, S.N. 2001. Promotion of local contracting capac-ity: CRB approach. In the proceedings of Construction Industry Forum, Dar es Salaam.

[6] Baitani, M., and Mullungu, B.M. 2007. Challenges facing contracting industry: The experience of Local Government Authorities. In the proceeding of Contractors Annual Consultative meeting (10 Years of CRB: Empowering Contractors to Meet the Challenges Ahead) Dar es Salaam.

[7] Khoza, R. 2007. Regulation and Development of the Contracting Industry: Lessons from the South. In the proceeding of Contractors Annual Consultative meeting (10 Years of CRB: Empowering Contractors to Meet the Challenges Ahead) Dar es Salaam.

[8] Cooke-Davies, T.J. 2002. The “real” success factors on projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20 (3), pp.185-190.

[9] Mlinga, R. 2008. Contractors urged to make use of PPA, 2004. Contractors Registration Board Newsletter, July – Sept. issue, pp.8-12.

[10] Takim, R. and Akintoye, A. 2005. Performance indicators for successful construction project performance. www.arcom.ac.uk viewed on 29/03/2011.

[11] Schaufelberger, J.E. and Holm, L. 2002. Management of construction project. Prentice Hall, 2002.

[12] Msita, K. 1997. Performance of the construction industry in Tanzania from 1992 to 1996. Journal of National Construction Council, 1 (4): pp.10-14.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThe author of this paper would like to acknowledge the work done by the student Mr. Juma Magoto whose Masters Disserta-tion information and data form a substantial part of this paper.

journal of construction

Documents