JORIND 11(1), June, 2013. ISSN 1596-8308. www.transcampus.org/journals; www.ajol.

info/journals/jorind

CAUSES OF TIME OVERRUN OF EDUCATION TRUST FUND BUILDING PROJECTS IN NORTH

CENTRAL NIGERIA

R.A. Koko, F. Afuye, and N.I. Demide

Department of Building Technology, Federal Polytechnic, Idah, Nigeria

E-mail: richardkoko5@gmail.com.

Abstract

The study surveyed Education Trust Fund building projects in some tertiary institutions in north central Nigeria
with the aim of ascertaining the causes of time overrun of these projects. The survey was carried out with the help of
a structured questionnaire administered to clients, consultants and contractors’ alike. Oral interview was equally
conducted to clarify some gray area identified. The data collected were analysed using descriptive, analysis of
variance and chi-square methods of data analysis. The results shows that 73.91% of forty six(46) projects surveyed
in this zone had cases of time overrun and four major factors were identified to be responsible which are: design
changes, poor contract management, poor financing and mis-management of mobilization fee by the contractors.
The paper concludes that time overrun can be prevented by given due consideration to design and planning at the
inception of the project by the parties involved.

Keywords: Time overrun, building projects, client, consultant, contractor

Introduction that time variance is one of the techniques for assessing

Performance measurement is defined as the process of
evaluating performance relative to a defined goal. It
provides a sense of where we are and more importantly,
where we are going (Rose, 1995). It can guide steady
advancement towards established goals and identify
shortfalls or stagnation. According to Barkley and Saylor
(1994), it is widely accepted view that at a minimum,
performance measures of a project are based on time,
cost and quality. However, Kumaraswamy and Thorpe
(1999) considered variety criteria in measuring project
performance. This includes meeting budget, time
schedule, the quality of workmanship, end-users’
satisfaction, transfer of technology, and health and
safety. The focus of this paper is on time, time
management therefore is “the processes required to
ensure timely completion of projects” (Webster and
Knutson (2006)). The management of time is crucial to
the successful completion of a project, the function of
time management is divided into six processes namely:
definition, sequencing, resource estimating, duration
estimating, schedule development, and schedule control.
According to Lim and Mohammed (2000) in Ali and
Rahmat (2010) it is very important for construction
projects to be completed on time, as the clients, users,
stakeholders and the general public usually look at
project success from the macro view where their first
criterion for project success appeared to be the
completion time. Salter and Torbet (2003) mentioned
project performance in construction projects.
The element of time could indicate to project managers
that the project was running as smoothly as scheduled.
The construction time of a building as viewed by Ali and
Rahmat (2010) is usually specified before the
commencement of construction. Construction time can
also be deduced from the client’s brief or derived by the
construction planner from available project information.
It is widely recognized that planning and monitoring
according to Falco and Macchiaroli (1997), plays a
major role as the cause of project failures. Despite the
continuous evolution in the project management field, it
appears evident that the traditional approaches still show
a lack of appropriate methodologies for the project
control. The proposed methodology to determine the
timing of monitoring and control actions in project
planning according to Falco and Macchiaroli (1997), is
based on the definition of an effort function, defined as a
non linear function of the total number of active
operations and the total slack time. The possibility to
monitor the project deviations from the planned schedule
due to environmental changes is the first step to generate
proper feedback actions and to predispose corrective
actions.

183
 JORIND 11(1), June, 2013. ISSN 1596-8308. www.transcampus.org/journals; www.ajol.info/journals/jorind

This paper examines causes of time overrun of
Education Trust Fund building projects in selected
tertiary institutions in some states in North Central
Nigeria.
The Education Trust Fund (ETF)
Against the background of deteriorating educational
infrastructure and the falling standard of education in the
late 80’s and early 90’s in Nigeria, agitations arose for
reforms in the education sector. In response, the
Education Tax Fund was established in 1993 under
decree No.7 as amended by Act No. 40 of 1998 as a
Trust Fund, with the objective of using funding with
project management to improve the quality of education
in Nigeria. Act No. 40 of 1998 amended the law
establishing the Fund to reposition it to meet with new
challenges (Babayo, 2010). In repositioning the Fund,
the law was again amended in May 2011 as Tertiary
Education Trust Fund to carter for educational problems
of tertiary institutions only (Anuku, 2011). The main
source of income available to the Fund is the two percent
levy paid from the accessible profit of companies
registered in Nigeria. The Federal Inland Revenue
Service (FIRS) is empowered by the Act to assess and
collect education Tax, and so far N361.79 billion was
collected as at December 2009 as per CBN transfers
(Babayo, 2010).

Education tax collections

The following collections have been made since 1999 according to CBN transfers:

Table 1: Education Tax Collections Made From 1999-2009 in Nbillions

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total
5.63 8.30 16.10 10.13 9.44 17.12 21.61 27.72 50.53 55.55 139.57 361.7
Source: Babayo, 2010.

The normal sectored allocations for the period 1999- In evaluating and analysing the causes of time overrun of
2009 stood at N195, 224,327,611.49 and this was ETF building projects in tertiary institutions in North
allocated to the various tiers of the education i.e. tertiary, Central Nigeria, a structured questionnaire of seven
secondary and primary sub-sectors. Within the same identified causes were served on clients, consultants and
period, the sum of N110, 850,530,030.71 was disbursed contractors of these projects. A total of 24 questionnaires
to benefiting institutions. The disbursement is pre- made up of the client, one consultant and two contractors
conditioned on the satisfactory utilization of the funds were chosen per institution in the study area. It was
released to each beneficiary. The conditions for organised in the form of a priority scaling i.e Likert scale
disbursement put in place by the Fund have significantly (1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Undecided,
enhanced cash flow to the beneficiaries for the timely 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree). The questionnaires were
completion of projects. Because of this, the Fund has not analysed and presented in the descriptive and inferential
recorded any abandoned project since 1999 (Babayo, methods using tables, percentile, chi-square and student
2010). t-test from which results were drawn.
Even though the Fund claims the above, what we do not
know is the level of efficiency and effectiveness. How
Presentation of results and discussions
time effective these projects are is what this study seeks
to evaluate. A summary of the initial and final durations of the
projects including starting and finishing dates in all the
institutions surveyed are tabulated below.
Research method

184
 JORIND 11(1), June, 2013. ISSN 1596-8308. www.transcampus.org/journals; www.ajol.info/journals/jorind

Table 2: Data on Duration of projects in Plateau State-University of Jos

S/No Projects/year Duration Starting Finishe Final Diff. % Diff.
. (Weeks) Date d Duration (Weeks)
Date (Weeks)
1 A-1999
2 B-2001 20 15/08/0 05/04/0 33 +13 6.5
3 4
3 C-2002 24 04/02/0 22/02/0 54 +30 12.5
4 5
4 D-2007 30 24/11/0 28/07/1 35 +5 16.67
9 0
5 E-2007 12 04/11/0 29/09/1 47 +35 291.67
9 0
6 F-2007 30 11/11/0 01/12/1 55 +25 83.33
9 1

Table 3: Data on duration of projects in Plateau State, Plateau State

Polytechnic, Barkin Ladi
S/No. Projects/ Duratio Starting Finished Final Duration Diff. % Diff.
year (Weeks) Date Date (Weeks) (Weeks)

1 A-2001 12 16/03/01 13/02/02 48 +36 300

2 B-2003 12 11/06/03 10/05/04 48 +36 300

3 C-2004 12 16/09/04 09/09/05 51 +39 325

4 D-2006 12 12/06/06 14/03/07 39 +27 225

5 E-2008 12 10/05/08 06/06/09 56 +44 366.67

6 F-2010 12 06/02/10 16/02/11 53 +41 341.67

Table 4: Data on Duration of projects in Benue State-University of Agriculture

Makurdi
S/No. Projects/ Duration Starting Finished Final Diff. % Diff.
Year (Weeks) Date Date Duration (Weeks)
(WeekS)
1 A-2001 24 30/05/03 27/04/06 151 +127 529.17
2 B-2007 12 02/09/08 05/03/10 78 +66 550
3 C-2007 12 04/07/08 22/11/10 124 +112 933.33
4 D-2007 12 09/09/08 08/04/10 115 +103 858.33

185
 JORIND 11(1), June, 2013. ISSN 1596-8308. www.transcampus.org/journals; www.ajol.info/journals/jorind

5 E-2008 16 26/01/10 26/11/10 44 +28 175

Table 5: Data on Duration of Projects in Benue State College of Education

Katsina-Ala
S/No Project/Year Duration Starting Finished Final Diff. % Diff.
(Weeks) Date Date Duration (Weeks)
(Weeks)
1 A – 2002 16 11/07/02 14/10/02 16 0 0
2 B – 2002 16 11/07/02 14/10/02 16 0 0
3 C – 2002 16 11/07/02 14/10/02 16 0 0
4 D – 2002 16 11/07/02 14/10/02 16 0 0
5 E – 2002 16 11/07/02 14/10/02 16 0 0
6 F – 2003 16 4/08/03 14/01/04 20 +4 25
7 G – 2003 16 4/08/03 14/01/04 20 +4 25
8 H – 2006 16 21/03/06 15/06/06 16 0 0
9 I – 2007 16 21/10/07 12/05/08 29 +13 81.25
10 J – 2007 16 21/10/07 12/05/08 29 +13 81.25
11 K – 2007 16 21/10/07 12/05/08 29 +13 81.25
12 L – 2009 16 01/07/09 07/09/10 12 -4 -25
13 M – 2010 16 22/12/10 On-going
14 N – 2010 16 12/12/10 10/10/11 43 +27 168.75
15 O – 2010 16 22/12/10 On- going
16 P – 2010 16 22/12/10 On- going

Table 6: Data on Duration of Projects in Kogi State-Federal Polytechnic Idah

S/No. Projects/ Duration Starting Finished Final Diff. % Diff.
year (Weeks) date Date Duration (Weeks)
(Weeks)
1 A-2000 16 26/02/01 11/12/01 41 +25 156.25
2 B-2002 28 01/03/03 28/08/03 26 +2 7.14
3 C-2003 16 21/06/05 17/11/05 22 +6 37.50
4 D-2005 10 23/03/07 15/08/07 22 +12 120
5 E-2005 12 05/06/07 23/09/08 68 +56 466.67
6 F-2007 14 18/01/10 26/04/10 14 0 0

Table 7: Data on duration of projects in Kogi State-College of Education,

Ankpa
S/No. Projects/ Duration Starting Finished Final Diff % Diff.
year (Weeks) Date Date Duration (Weeks)
(Weeks)
1 A-2001 16 09/09/01 16/06/02 40 +24 150
2 B-2003 16 12/02/03 19/10/04 89 +73 456.25
3 C-2005 16 25/03/05 30/11/06 87 +71 443.75
4 D-2007 20 15/02/07 22/12/07 44 +24 120
5 E-2008 20 18/03/08 25/11/08 36 +16 80
6 F-2009 20 12/04/09 19/10/09 27 +7 35
7 G-2010 20 05/02/10 29/10/10 38 +18 90

186
 JORIND 11(1), June, 2013. ISSN 1596-8308. www.transcampus.org/journals; www.ajol.info/journals/jorind

A t-test of initial durations of projects in institutions in
Plateau, Benue and Kogi states show p-values of 0.001,
0.005 and 0.001 respectively at 5% level of significances
which means there is significant difference in the
durations of projects in the states in North Central
Nigeria.
A one-way analysis of variance for duration variances in
North Central Nigeria shows a p-value of 0.628 for
initial and 0.937 for final duration at 5% level of
significance which shows that there is no significant
variation in durations of projects in the states. A post
Hoc test for multiple comparisons gives the following p-
values, Kogi and Plateau, 0.942 initial and 0.727 final,
Kogi and Benue, 0.396 initial and 0.923 final, Benue and
Plateau, 0.468 initial and 0.788 final. Hence, there is no
significant variation in the durations of the projects in
different states in North Central Nigeria. Impliedly, all
the institutions surveyed had serious cases of time
overrun as indicated by the results of the analysis as well
as the simple percentile indicated in the above tables.
Only College of Education Katsina Ala, Benue State
whose time overrun ranges between 25% and 165.75%
has the least case. Other institutions are as follows,
University of Jos, 65% to 291.67%; Plateau State
Polytechnic, Barkin Ladi, 225% to 366.67%; University
of Agriculture, Makurdi, 175% to 933.33%; Federal
Polytechnic, Idah, 7.4% to 456.25%, COE Ankpa 35% to
456.25%.
Causes of time overrun
Seven factors that can cause time overrun were identified
and the stakeholders were asked to identify which of
these could lead to such overrun and their responses are
shown in Table 8 below:

Table 8: Causes of time overrun

S/No Factors Clients Consultants Contractors
% % %
1 Climatic conditions 0.00 16.67 16.67

2 Changes in site conditions 16.67 16.67 50.00

3 Design changes 50.00 50.00 66.67

4 Poor contract mgt 66.67 66.67 50.00

5 Shortage of materials 50.00 50.00 33.33

6 Financing and payment of 66.67 50.00 50.00

completed work

7 Subcontractor & nominated 50.00 50.00 33.33

suppliers

All the three stakeholders (Clients, Consultants, and
Contractors) agree on three factors viz, a) Design
changes: It was discovered that the designs are mostly
altered which is caused by both clients and consultants
b) poor contract management and
c) financing and payment of completed works: Release
of funds for these projects are in three tranches:- 50%
mobilisation, 35% second payment after roofing and
15% after completion., the contractors do not manage
their mobilisation fee well and the second release takes
time and can be seen as factors of time overrun.

187
 JORIND 11(1), June, 2013. ISSN 1596-8308. www.transcampus.org/journals; www.ajol.info/journals/jorind
A one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and chi-
square tests are carried out to check the variability of the
responses among stakeholders. The p-value of the
ANOVA test is 0.718. A post Hoc test for multiple
comparisons shows the following p-values, 0.481 for
clients and consultants also same for clients and
contractors, 1 for contractors and consultants. A chi-
square test gives a p-value of 0.983. All these results
mean that there is no variation among stakeholders as to
causes of time overrun.
Conclusions
From the survey carried out it was discovered that the
modalities put in place by Education Trust Fund
administrators should ensure timely completion of most
of the projects being executed in our tertiary institutions.
However, the following findings were made:
a. There are cases of time overrun in almost all the
building projects in the institutions considered, forty six
building projects were constructed in the six institutions
studied in North Central Nigeria. Thirty four
representing 73.91% have cases of time overrun.
b. All the parties to the contract: client, consultant and
contractors were responsible for such delay.
c. The factors identified to be responsible for such delay
are: design changes, poor contract management and
Financing and payment of completed works and
improper management of mobilisation by contractors.
Recommendations
Based on the findings of the study, the following
recommendations are made:
 The practice of each institution having her
consultants should be maintained.
 Consultants should be more careful at planning
stage in order to avoid variation of works.
 Clients should programme the payment
schedule in such a way that release of funds
especially the 35% second payment should be
on time to avoid time overrun.
 Contractors should engage professional builders
to manage the production of their building
188
projects as they are bound to keep to
construction schedule and avoid time overrun.
References
Ali, A.S. and Rahmat, I. (2010). “The Performance
Measurement of Construction Projects Managed by ISO-
Certified Contractors in Malaysia”. Journal of Retail
and leisure Property (2010)9, 25-35. www.palgrave-
journals.com/rlp/journal/v9/nl/abs/rlp200920a.htm
Retrieved 5th August, 2011.
Anuku,W. (2011). Tertiary Education Trust Fund Bill.
http://www.elendureports.com. Retrieved 23rd June,
2011.
Babayo, M. (2010). ETF 2009 Annual Report. Cavalet
Publications Ltd
Barkley, B. and Saylor, J. (1994). Customer-driven
Project Management. New York, McGraw-Hill.
Falco, M.D. and Macchiaroli, R. (1997). Timing of
Control Activities in Project Planning. Elsevier science
Ltd and IPMA, Great Britain.
Kumaraswamy, M.M. and Thorpe, A. (1999).
“Systematizing Construction Project Evaluations”.
Journal of Management in Engineering 12(1):34-39
Rose, K.H.(1995). A Performance Measurement Model,
Quality Progress 28(2):63-66
Salter, A. and Torbett, R. (2003).” Innovation and
Performance in Engineering Design”. Journal of
Construction Management and Economics 21:573-580.
Webster, F.M. and Knutson, J. (2006). What is Project
Management? Project Management Concepts and
Methodologies. In: The AMA Handbook of Project
Management 2nd ed. Paul c. Dinsmore, Jeannette.
Cabanis-Brewin (Eds), Amacom, New York.