Key words corruption forms (CFs), relative importance index (RII), Spearman’s Rank Correlation (Rho)

1. INTRODUCTION

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
CHAPTER 03

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1. INTRODUCTION:
In this chapter it is discussed that how the CFs in each phase of construction project were interrogated,
what information was collected and how these information were analyzed by using statistical tools.
Through literature review, a questionnaire consisting of seven CFs were compiled to investigate their
predomination over project life cycle by a survey involving clients, consultant and contractors
perspective.

Literature Review

3.2. Setting Objective of

Project

Identification of CFs

Questionnaire Design

Survey and Data

Collection

Survey Data Analysis

Conclusion

Recommendations

Figure 3.1.Research Methodology Flow Chart

 IDENTIFICATION OF CFs
There are various CFs from which those that are crucial in project life cyclehave been identified through
literature review and then identified through questionnaire survey by the response of different
professionals (client, consultant, and contractor).

3.3. QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN:

The questionnaire was design in such a manner that all the participants can conveniently take part in the
questionnaire within a reasonable time so that we get maximum responses from the client, consultant
and contractor. Questionnaire is consisting of two parts including Personal Information and occurrence
of the CFs in project life cycle. In personal information there were 4 questions i.e. name, company name,
designation and experience of the Respondents etc. While the second part of the questionnaire consists
of likelihood of the CFs in project life cycle in which participants were asked to rank the factors from (1
to 5) which shows likelihood of occurrence. The responses for the structured part of the questionnaire
were based on Likert’s-scale of five ordinal measures of agreement towards each statement (from 1 to
5) as shown in Table 3.1.

The reason for adopting this Likert’s-scale was to provide simplicity for the respondent to answer, and to
make evaluation of collected data easier and faster. Likert’s-scale is important to know respondents'
feelings or attitudes about the questions. The respondents must indicate how closely their feelings
match with the question.

Table 3. 1. Questionnaire Frequency Ranking Scale

Designated Number Interpretation

1 Not Happens

2 Rarely Happens

3 Sometime Happens

4 Often Happens

5 Always Happens

Questionnaire based on Likert’s scale is attached in appendix A

3.4. Survey and data collection

The data was collected through online google form and face to face interview based questionnaire
survey. Different CFs have been identified from literature review which were used to develop the
questionnaire, and then a questionnaire survey was done to collect the data.

3.4.1. Participants

The population is an aggregate or totality of all the objects, subjects or members that confirm to a set of
specifications (Polit and Hungler, 2009). In this study the population consists of client, contractor and
consultant belonging to the road sector construction industry of Pakistan.

The designed questionnaire is filled by the employees of the firm which includes the client, consultant
and contractor. The purpose of filling questionnaire by all these people was to ensure the completeness
of data from all parts of construction industry.

3.4.2. Eligibility Criteria

The eligibility criteria in this study is that the participants had to be resident of Pakistan, and having at
least 1-2 years’ experience in their related fields and his/her construction company is registered from
Government of Pakistan.

3.4.3. Sample Size

A sample is a subset of a population selected to participate in the study, it is a fraction of the whole,
selected to participate in the research project (Brink, 1996); (Polit & Hungler, 1999). In this survey, 20
construction companies were selected on random basis in which there were 60participants i.e. Clients,
Contractors and Consultants which were asked to give their opinions about the cost variations factors.

A general rule of the thumb is to always use the largest sample possible. The larger the sample the more
representative it is going to be; smaller samples produce less accurate results because they are likely to
be less representative of the population (Wood & Haber, 1998).

Table 3. 2. Participants and Sample Size

Participant Client Consultant Contractor

Sample Size 15 20 25
3.5. Methodology of Data Analysis

Data analysis is performed in two stages, first in which we ranked the factors group wise i.e. client,
consultant and contractor according to their frequency and severity level and in second stage, Overall
ranking of the factors were done from the responses obtained from the questionnaire survey using
relative importance index and the agreement of response between the stakeholder is analyzed through
spearman’s rank correlation.

3.5.1. Relative importance index

In the analysis the statistical tool i.e. “Relative Importance Index” (RII) was adopted to establish the
relative importance of the CFs in road sector construction projects of Pakistan. As discussed earlier,
Likert’s scale of five ordinal measures of agreement towards each statement (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) was used
to calculate the RII for each CFs in each phase of project life cycle that was used to determine the
relative ranking.

The RII for each CFsin each project phase are computed by using the following formula;

∑𝑊
Relative Importance Index (RII) = (𝐻)(𝑁) Eqn [3.1]

Where;

W = Total weight given to each factor by the respondents, which ranges from 1 to 5 and is calculated by
an addition of the various weightings given to a factor by the all respondents.
H = Highest ranking available (i.e. 5 in this case),
N = Total number of responses.

By applying this method in questionnaire response, we get most predominated forms of corruptionin
varies phases of the project. This analysis is done in all response of the client, consultant and contractor
separately.

3.5.2. Spearman’s Rank Correlation

To check the difference between the opinion of respondents i.e. client, consultant and contractor,
“Spearman’s Rank Correlation” (Rho) coefficient was used for measuring the differences in perception
between two groups of respondents scoring for various factors (i.e. clients versus consultants, clients
versus contractors, and consultants versus contractors).

The spearman correlation coefficient for any two groups of ranking is given by the following formula;

6 ∑ 𝑑2 Eqn [3.2]
Spearman’s Rank Correlation(Rho) = 1 − 𝑁(𝑁2 −1)

Where;
d– The difference in between ranking.
N – Number of variables.
 Chapter 04

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

4.1. INTRODUCTION

In this chapter analysis of responses based on questionnaire survey is done. The CFs in questionnaire are
ranked through Relative Importance Index (RII) in each phase of project life cycle. Through this we found
the top predominated CFs in each phase of projectlife cycle and then the response agreement between
the stakeholders is identified using spearman’s rank correlation (Rho).

4.2. QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE

A detailed questionnaire consisting of 35 factors is develop using Likert’s scale and then distributed to
the Client, Consultant and Contractor in Karachi. The population size of questionnaire survey is 100
including professionals i.e. Clients, Consultants and Contractor belonging to different construction
building projects, out of which 77 were returned. The response rate of questionnaire is 77 % for
analyzing the data which is shown in Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1.

Table 4. 1. Questionnaire Response Rate

S.No. Respondent Questionnaire Questionnaire Rate of

Distributed Returned Response
1 Client 15 10 63.33
2 Consultant 20 11 80
3 Contractor 25 16 85.71
Total 60 37 77

Figure 4. 1. Questionnaire Response

4.3. ASSESSMENT OF CFS BASED ON QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE

The assessment of CFs based on questionnaire response is divided into the individual assessment of
each group of factor i.e. client, consultant and contractor as well as the overall assessment of all the
factors in questionnaire. The Relative Importance Index (RII) of each CFs is calculated from Equation 3.1.

4.3.1. CLIENT:

According to the respondent, in client group first most dominated CFs is favourisum which would occur
in prequalification stage with RII value of 1.05. The second most dominant CFs in client group is fraud in
execution stage with RII value of 1.03. The third most CFs in client group is favourisum in closing stage
with RII value of 1.0. The CFs related to client are shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4. 2. Client Related CFs Ranking

CFs in project phases RII Ranking

Favourisum In Prequalification Stage 1.05 1

Fraud In Execution Stage 1.03 2

Favourisum In Closing Stage 1.0 3

4.3.2. CONSULTANT

According to the respondent, in consultant group first most dominated CFs is favourisum which would
occur in prequalification stage with RII value of 0.92. The second most dominant CFs in consultant group
is dishonesty in execution stage with RII value of 0.91. The third most CFs in consultant group is bribery
in closing stage with RII value of 0.89. The CFs related to contractor are shown in Table 4.1.

Table 4. 2. Consultant Related CFs Ranking

CFs in project phases RII Ranking

Favourisum In Prequalification Stage 0.92 1

Fraud In Execution Stage 0.91 2

Bribery In Closing Stage 0.89 3

 4.3.3. CONTRACTOR

According to the respondent, in contractor group first most dominated CFs is bribery which would occur
in execution stage with RII value of 1.02. The second most dominant CFs in contractor group is
dishonesty in execution stage with RII value of 0.98. The third most CFs in contractor group is collusion
in prequalification stage with RII value of 0.70. The CFs related to contractor are shown in Table 4.1.

Table 4. 2. Contractor Related CFs Ranking

CFs in project phases RII Ranking

Bribery In Execution Stage 1.02 1

Dishonesty In Execution Stage 0.98 2

Collusion In prequalification Stage 0.70 3