Jarkas, A. M., & Haupt, T. C. (2015) - Major Construction Risk Factors Considered by General Contractors in Qatar

Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology
Major construction risk factors considered by general contractors in Qatar:

Abdulaziz M. Jarkas Theo C. Haupt
Article information:
To cite this document:
Abdulaziz M. Jarkas Theo C. Haupt , (2015),"Major construction risk factors considered by general contractors in Qatar",
Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology , Vol. 13 Iss 1 pp. -
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-03-2014-0012
Downloaded on: 19 February 2015, At: 03:55 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 18 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Downloaded by Northern Alberta Institute of Technology At 03:55 19 February 2015 (PT)
Zayyana Shehu, Intan R. Endut, Akintola Akintoye, (2014),"Factors contributing to project time and hence cost overrun in
the Malaysian construction industry", Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 19 Iss 1 pp. 55-75
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JFMPC-04-2013-0009
Ali Rostami, James Sommerville, Ing Liang Wong, Cynthia Lee, (2015),"Risk management implementation in small and
medium enterprises in the UK construction industry", Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 22 Iss 1
pp. 91-107 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-04-2014-0057
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 405387 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

MAJOR CONSTRUCTION RISK FACTORS CONSIDERED BY GENERAL
CONTRACTORS IN QATAR
ABSTRACT
Purpose – The main purpose of this study is to identify, explore, rank the relative importance, and
determine the prevalent allocation response trends of the major construction risk factors considered by
general contractors operating in the State of Qatar. Design/methodology/approach – A structured
questionnaire survey comprising 37 potential risk factors was distributed to a statistically representative
sample of contractors. The influence ranks of the factors explored were determined using the “Relative
Importance Index (RII)” technique, whereas the prevalent trend of contractors’ attitudes toward risk
allocation of each factor investigated was quantified and expressed as a percentage, based on the number
of respondents who selected a specific option, in relation to the total number of respondents. Findings –
The results obtained indicate that risks related to the “client” group are perceived as most critical,
followed by the “consultant”, “contractor”, and “exogenous” group-related factors, respectively. The
outcomes further show that the “transfer” option is the contractors’ prevalent response to “client” and
“consultant” related-risks, while the “retention” decision is the principle pattern linked to “contractor” and
“exogenous” group-related risk factors. Research implications – The dominant respondents’ perception
that the crucial construction risks are related to clients and consultants suggests that these two parties have
an essential role in controlling the negative ramifications of the associated factors. Practical implications
– The findings suggest that increasing designers’ awareness of the significant effect of applying the
constructability concept can considerably help reducing the risks concomitant of the construction
operation. Policy makers may contribute, moreover, in alleviating the risk of incompetent technical staff
and operatives’ employment by controlling the migration of inexperienced and unskilled construction
workforce into the State. Originality/value – Given the knowledge gap for the major construction risk
factors considered by general contractors in Qatar, the results reported in this study can provide clients,
industry practitioners, and policy makers with guidance to effectively manage the significant risks
determined, which can further assist in achieving a reasonable level of competitiveness and cost effective
operation.
Keywords: Risk Management; Risk Factors; Construction Projects Management; Contractors; State of
Qatar.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Risk management is widely recognized as one of the most important procedures and capability areas in
the field of project management (Artto, 1999; Tadayon et al., 2012). Due to the fact that each construction
project is unique and dynamic, the construction operation involves numerous uncertainties, multiple
intricacies, varies techniques, and divergent environments. Therefore, identifying and managing the
potential risk factors, which can significantly vary from project to project depending on several
conditions, plays a crucial role in enhancing the performance and accomplishing the successful delivery
of the enterprise.
Hertz and Thomas (1983) defined risk as a “variety of situations involving many unknown, unexpected,
frequently undesirable and often unpredictable factors.” Perry and Hayes (1985) referred to risk as “an
uncertain event or condition that, if it occurs, has a positive or negative effect on a project objective.”
Jaffari (2001), in addition, expressed risk as “the exposure to loss, gain, or the probability of occurrence
of loss/gain multiplied by its respective magnitude”, whereas Abbasi et al. (2005) characterized risk by
“the possibility of loss, injury, disadvantage or destruction”. On the other hand, Berk and Kartal (2012)
described risk as “the potential for unexpected consequences of an activity.”
In view of the previous discussion, the authors further propose the following risk definition: “the
consequences – good or bad – of any unplanned, unaccounted for, or ignored event, which can affect
project objectives or performance.” Put simply, however, effective risk management in projects involves
proactively working with project stakeholders to minimize the risks and maximize the opportunities
associated with project decisions and demands a clear, straightforward, and sensible approach
(Loosemore et al., 2006).
While it is prudent to assess the potential positive risk factors in order to enhance the profitability margins
of construction contracts, it is crucially important to systematically identify, categorize, and assess the
possible risk factors which can adversely impact the performance of projects. Therefore, this study
focuses on the inimical aspects of risks encountered along the course of the construction process.
Although risk management is a systematic and comprehensive approach geared toward “indentifying”,
“analyzing” and “responding” to risk factors to achieve the project objectives (PMBOK®, 2008), most
construction risk management plans are still based upon intuition, personal experience, and professional
judgment, where formal techniques are rarely used due to a lack of knowledge and doubts on the
suitability of these techniques for construction activities (Akintoye and MacLeod, 1997; Cretu et al.,
2011). Nonetheless, in comparison with the “analysis” and “response” stages, the “identification” process
of the possible risk factors is regarded as the single most important and challenging stage, upon which the
whole risk management plan is underpinned (Kansal and Sharma, 2012).
The State of Qatar, a peninsula projecting north into the Arabian Gulf, possesses the world’s third-largest
source of natural gas, and 15 Billion barrels of proven oil reserves, and hence, has benefited from a
fourfold increase in energy prices over the last five years (CIA, 2011). The construction sector has been
among the major contributors to the State’s economic growth, and is expected to continue to contribute
significantly to the GDP and labour force employment. In 2003, this sector witnessed a growth of 3.6%,
contributing Qatari Riyal (QAR) 2,850 Million (USD 750 Million) to the overall GDP (QER, 2004).
Nevertheless, following the announcement of awarding the FIFA 2022 World Cup hosting rights to Qatar
on December 02, 2010, the country will be investing heavily into hundreds of new construction projects
such as, stadiums, hotels, residences, hospitals, airports, seaports, railways, among other infrastructure
facilities (Construction Week, 2010).
The level of investment and construction spend is expected to lead to a major boom in Qatar construction
sector. Additionally, the magnitude and complexity of planned projects, as the case with most developing
countries, will inevitably require the participation of major international construction firms. It is most
likely that many of these international contractors do not possess any practical experience or knowledge
of the local construction industry, which may result in inflated bids to manage or mitigate any risk
associated with venturing into an unknown and culturally different environment.
Notwithstanding that construction risk factors may be comparable across the globe, several variables
pertaining to a local industry, such as, socio-economic, environment, and cultural issues, can further
contribute to unknown or unpredictable risks. Similar projects, moreover, may have totally different risk
characteristics in different regions (Zhi, 1995). In view of this challenge, the aim is to create a scientific
base given the knowledge gap for the State of Qatar.
The primary objective of this investigation, therefore, is to identify, explore, rank the relative importance,
and determine the prevalent allocation response trends of the major construction risk factors considered
by general contractors operating in Qatar. These findings can be used by local and international
contractors, in addition to clients, consultants, and policy makers, to develop a deeper and wider
understanding of the critical risk factors that are perceived to influence cost, time, and quality of
construction projects. This understanding may lead to the development of reasonable control measures of
these factors, not only during the construction stages, but also along the evolution of the design phases of
projects, and further assist in achieving a reasonable level of competitiveness and cost effective operation.
The paper starts with a literature review of previous related research, presents the research method and
data analysis, provides a discussion of the results obtained, and concludes, based on the results emerged
from this study, with practical recommendations to alleviate the adverse effects of the preeminent risk
factors identified on the development process of construction projects in the State.
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
Construction risk management has been the subject of numerous research studies. One of the earliest
attempts to structure construction risks and systematically identify their root causes can be credited to
Chapman and Cooper (1983), whose research presented the “risk engineering” approach, which integrated
different techniques and tools, such as PERT, decision trees, and probability distributions. Franke (1987)
highlighted the need to consider the influence of risks on different project objectives utilizing the
“monetary” value technique. On the other hand, Mustafa and Al-Bahar (1991) introduced the “Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP)” to apply the concept of value and weight to assess the risk probability and
effect, which was subsequently utilized by Zhi (1995) to appraise the risk levels of overseas construction
projects.
Edwards and Bowen (1998) conducted a extensive literature review of construction risk management
studies, which were published during the period from 1960 to 1997, to identify gaps and inconsistencies
in the knowledge and treatment of construction risks. The findings suggested that political, economic,
financial, and cultural risk factors deserved greater research attention, compared to factors associated with
quality assurance, and occupational health and safety. Uher and Toakley (1999), moreover, investigated
various structural and cultural factors related to the implementation of risk management principles in the
conceptual stage of a project life cycle. They concluded that while most industry practitioners were
familiar with risk management: its application in the conceptual phase is relatively low; qualitative rather
than quantitative methods are generally used; and risk management implementation was impeded by the
shallow knowledge of its principles.
Baccarini and Archer (2001) emphasized the need to rank and prioritize risks in a project in order to focus
the management effort on the higher risks. Kartam and Kartam (2001) examined the issue of construction
risk management in Kuwait, and found that: local contractors were often responsible for most risk factors;
the implementation of formal risk analysis techniques for managing and controlling risks was limited; and
contractors mainly relied on coordination with subcontractors, together with an increase of manpower and
equipment, to mitigate most of the risks encountered during the construction process.
2.1 PREVIOUS FINDINGS

Santoso et al. (2003) conducted a questionnaire survey to determine the prevalent risk factors in high rise
building construction in Jakarta, and identified: (1) site management; (2) design issues; (3) client
interference; (4) good communication and team work between contractors and consultants; and (5)
construction equipment maintenance, as most significant.
Ghosh and Jintanapakanont (2004) investigated the construction risk factors in large infrastructure
projects in Thailand, and reported, as most important, the following: (a) unavailability of funds; (b)
construction delay; (c) financial failure of contractor; (d) unclear scope of work; (e) economic crisis; (f)
delay in solving contractual issues; (g) delay in solving disputes; (h) third party delays; (i) subcontractor
failure; and (j) subcontractor lack of adequate number of staff.
Wiguna and Scott (2005), moreover, surveyed the risk factors affecting the performance of building
construction in Indonesia, and determined the following as most critical: (1) high inflation of prices; (2)
defective design; (3) design change by owner; (4) delayed payments on contract; (5) inclement weather;
(6) unforeseen site ground condition; (7) poor cost control; (8) defective construction work; (9) delay in
providing detail drawings; and (10) problems with availability of labour, material and equipment.
Zou et al. (2007) studied the key risks in construction projects in China, and recommended that clients,
designers, and government bodies should take the responsibility to manage their relevant risks and work
cooperatively from the feasibility phase onwards to address potential risks in time, on the one hand, and
that only contractors and subcontractors with robust construction and management knowledge and
experience should be employed to minimize construction risks and carry out safe, efficient, and quality
activities, on the other.
Enshassi et al. (2008) investigated the risk factors impacting the performance of building construction in
Palestine, and identified the following factors as most influential: (a) financial failure of the contractor;
(b) working in dangerous areas; (c) frequent border closure; (d) defective design; (e) delayed payments on
contract; (f) segmentation of Gaza Strip; (g) invasions; (h) poor communications among projects parties;
(i) unmanaged cash flow; and (j) awarding the design to unqualified designers.
El-Sayegh (2008) further surveyed the risks in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) construction industry,
and distinguished the following factors as most important: (i) inflation and sudden changes in prices; (ii)
shortage in materials and labour supply; (iii) unrealistic construction schedules; (iv) improper intervention
of clients; and (v) changes in design.
Goh and Abdul-Rahman (2013) carried out a survey to determine the risk factors in the Malaysian
construction industry, and reported, inter alia, the following as most significant: (a) late payment by
client; (b) inflation and price fluctuation; (c) variation orders; (d) tight project schedule; (e) insufficient
time to prepare a bid; (f) inclement weather; (g) default of personnel; (h) design errors and ambiguous
contract provisions; (i) unstable politics; and (g) accidents.
In a study geared toward isolating the risk factors leading to cost overrun in Ethiopian federal road
construction projects, Turkey (2011) recognized, as most critical, the following: (1) unexpected inflation;
(2) delays on completion time; (3) scope changes; (4) unstable cost of manufactured materials; and (5)
inadequate site investigation and right of way problems.
Tadayon et al. (2012), in addition, examined the risk factors in large construction projects in Iran, and
identified, as most crucial: (a) project complexity; (b) time constraint; (c) experience of parties involved
in the construction operation; (d) frequent changes in statutory regulations; and (e) novel construction
methods required.
Hwang et al. (2013) explored the risk factors impacting the schedule performance of public housing
projects in Singapore, and found the following factors as most influential: (i) effective site management;
(ii) coordination among various parties; and (iii) availability of labourers.
Mahamid (2013), on the other hand, surveyed the risk factors affecting road construction projects in
Palestine and reported the following as most critical: (a) financial status of contractor; (b) payment delay
by owner; (c) poor communication among the construction parties; (d) low equipment efficiency; (e) high
competitions in bids; and (f) the political situation.
It can, therefore, be concluded that, although the relative importance and the underlying causes of risks
within construction projects, depending on the social, cultural, economical, political, and environmental
conditions, may be different in different countries and across geographical regions, and apart from the
special circumstances, such as the case in Palestine, where some of the risks identified are related to the
chronic political instability, which has been persisting for the past 60 years, an overall reasonable
consensus exists on the major factors highlighted in the literature. Consequently, it may be concluded
that, to effectively manage such risks, a simultaneous assessment of a large number of inter-related
different factors, which are further classified under different taxonomies, is required.
2.2 RISK CLASSIFICATIONS
In order to categorize construction risk factors into global main groups, which can best encompass and
relate to the various corresponding factors, several approaches have been adopted. However, an
agreement among researches on the classification schemes of such groups, is yet to be achieved.
Al-Bahar (1990) categorized construction risk factors into the following six major groups: (1) acts of
God; (2) physical; (3) financial; (4) political and environmental; (5) design; and (6) construction. Abdou
(1996), however, assigned construction risks into the following three major subsets: (i) financial; (ii)
time; and (iii) design risks. Shen (1997), in accordance with the nature of the risks, classified the risk
factors into the following six main groups: (a) financial; (b) legal; (c) management; (d) market; (e) policy;
and (f) political risks, whereas Tah and Carr (2000) identified construction risks in relation to the
following two basic broad schemes: (i) external; and (ii) internal.
Ghosh and Jintanapakanont (2004), however, categorized risks into nine major classes: (1) financial; (2)
contractual and legal; (3) subcontractors; (4) operational; (5) safety; (6) design; (7) force majeure; (8)
physical; and (9) delay. Wiguna and Scott (2005), in addition, classified the construction risk factors into
four major partitions: (a) external and site conditions; (b) economic and financial risks; (c) technical and
contractual risks; and (d) managerial risks.
While Assaf and Al-Hajji (2006) limited construction risk factors to “construction delays”, Enshassi et al.
(2008) were more elaborate and went on to categorize the risk factors into the following nine main
groups: (1) physical; (2) environmental; (3) design; (4) logistics; (5) financial; (6) legal; (7) construction;
(8) political; and (9) management risks. Nevertheless, Rezakhani (2012) proposed the following five
major risk classifications: (i) external; (ii) operational; (iii) project management; (iv) engineering; and (v)
financial risks.
Zuofa and Ochieng (2011), furthermore, assigned risk factors into the following four major subsets: (a)
operational; (b) commercial; (c) project size and execution; and (d) force majeure risks, while Tadayon et
al. (2012) classified construction risks into eleven main groups, namely: (i) financial; (ii) construction;
(iii) demand/products; (iv) political; (v) environmental; (vi) technological; (vii) geographical; (viii)
geotechnical; (ix) communications; (x) legal; and (xi) social.
Barlish et al. (2013), however, further expanded the classification of risks into the following twelve main
groups: (1) political; (2) financial; (3) socio-cultural; (4) technological; (5) legal; (6) environmental; (7)
acts of God; (8) client; (9) design; (10) site-related; (11) subcontractors; and (12) operation and
management risks.
Although several group taxonomies have been proposed by different researchers, a careful consideration
of the various terminologies presented, the authors controvert, reveal a considerable level of subdivisions,
subordinate augmentations and sub-settings. Despite the fact that construction risk factors can be different
in different countries and across sites, a global agreement on a classification scheme, in which such
factors can be allocated under, the authors argue, is possible, since the terms of such classifications can
hold tenable regardless of the geographical regions, environments, or jobsites, on which the specific
factors partitioned vary in their importance level.
Therefore, the authors propose a classification scheme, which can include and represent all of the
previously discussed group-categories, by relating the specific risk factor to its source. For instance,
financial, decision making process, design, inspection, construction, safety, permits and government
approvals, unforeseen circumstances, or force majeure risk factors, can be either traced to the party
responsible for, or simply partitioned under an exogenous category. In view of this, the authors introduce
the following four major taxonomies, under which the various construction risk factors explored in this
research shall be allocated: (i) client-related factors; (ii) consultant-related factors; (iii) contractor-related
factors; and (iv) exogenous-related factors.
2.3 RISK ANALYSIS AND RESPONSE STRATEGIES
On the other hand, risk analysis techniques and response practices assist in estimating potential impacts of
the risk factors identified, and in making decisions pertaining to which risks to “retain”, “mitigate”, or
“transfer”. Depending on the type and size of the project, risk analysis involves both, quantitative and
qualitative techniques (Ward and Chapman, 1997). The quantitative approach is mainly based on
probability distribution of risks, which can provide objective results, if sufficient data, however, are
available. The qualitative method, on the other hand, depends upon personal experience, intuition, and
judgment, and therefore, the outcomes can significantly vary from one analyst to another. Consequently,
the quantitative approach remains the preferred option by most practitioners.
According to Carter and Doherty (1974), Thompson and Perry (1992), and Kelly (1996), risk response
practices comprise the following four distinct methods: (1) risk acceptance or retention; (2) risk
mitigation or reduction; (3) risk elimination or avoidance; and (4) risk transfer.
Nonetheless, the selection of approach must be appropriate to the significance of the risk, cost effective,
and realistic with regard to the timing of the project (Goh and Abdul-Rahman, 2013). Risk retention
involves accepting and managing risk in one of two ways, namely, actively or passively. Active risk
retention is a management strategic decision after careful evaluation and consideration of the possible
consequences of the risk retained, whereas passive risk retention usually occurs as a result of negligence
or ignorance.
Risk reduction is a technique used to alleviate the negative consequences of risks through continuous
improvement of the policies, procedures, educational, and training devices. For instance, developing and
implementing a preventive and regular construction equipment maintenance plan can substantially reduce
accidents on sites and obviate unnecessary delays and costly repairs due to malfunction or preventable
break-downs. Risk elimination, involves the avoidance of risk, a technique that is usually impractical in
the construction industry. Such a practice can be best exemplified by a “no bid” decision, placing an
excessively high bid, or imposing conditions on the bid tendered by the contractor. Risk transfer, on the
other hand, includes; either transferring the risks embedded in the entire activity to a third party through
subcontracting, or shifting the financial risk by way of insurance, such as “all risks and labour
compensation” coverage policies, which are most often contractual requirements, and therefore, are
widely used by contractors.
The attitudes of contractors toward risk management have been examined by several previous studies
(Perry and Hayes, 1985; Thompson and Perry, 1992; Kelly, 1996; Kartam and Kartam, 2001; Wiguna and
Scott, 2005; Zou et al., 2007; El-Sayegh, 2008; Enhassi et al., 2008; Hlaing et al., 2008; Wang and Yuan,
2011; Hanna et al., 2013; Hwang et al., 2013). The prevalent pattern indicates that, while risk “retention”
and “mitigation” are the most common reactions related to construction issues, such as planning,
scheduling, resources, methods and techniques employed on sites, equipment suitability and labour
productivity, defective workmanship and rework, the risk “transfer” response is the customary approach
to clients’ actions, or inactions, for instance, delay in making decisions, delay in processing approved
payments by consultants, frequent changes and variations, appointment of unqualified representatives,
and consultants’ technical related factors in the form of errors and omissions in design drawings, outdated
or unclear technical specifications, delay in responding to requests for information, delay in approving
material samples and shop drawings, stringent inspections, in addition to external risks, which are beyond
the control of the parties involved in the construction operation. Examples of which include inclement
weather conditions, unforeseen or sudden escalation in prices, delay in permitting and government
approvals, and changes in statutory regulations.
Although such external factors are beyond the control of contractors, and therefore, “theoretically”
speaking, the associated risks should not even be borne by them, clients tend to argue that they are beyond
their control too, and therefore seek to apply the “burden sharing” concept among the parties involved by
endeavouring to allocate portions of these risks to consultants as well as contractors. Such a practice,
albeit, is “independently” recognized by most contractors, and is commonly, yet unconnectedly,
provisioned for under the bid contingency funds.
Nevertheless, the risk response strategy remains the weakest part of the risk management process, where
the proper management requires a prudent identification of risks in a well-defined manner, which can
only be achieved when “all” parties involved in the construction enterprise, namely, clients, consultants,
contractors, authorities, and policy makers, comprehend their risk responsibilities, risk event conditions,
and risk handling capabilities (Hillson, 2000; Perera et al., 2009).

3.0 RESEARCH METHOD AND DATA ANALYSIS
This research study is inherently quantitative and although it may be criticized on the grounds of causal
explanation (Ackroyd and Hughes, 1981), the results are mainly used to underpin the qualitative
interpretations, and therefore, are not in conflict with the phenomenological paradigm.
The related data to this investigation were collected by a structured – close-ended – questionnaire survey.
The logic underlying the selection of such a data collection method is fourfold: (a) it is less intrusive and
cost effective when compared to telephone or face-to-face interviews, which is especially advantageous
for collecting large sample sizes; (b) the familiarity of the questionnaire survey concept to most potential
respondents; (c) the practicality and relative simplicity, with which the sets returned can be analyzed; and
(d) in comparison with telephone and face-to-face interviews, it assists in reducing the bias that may be
introduced by researchers’ verbal and visual clues, respectively (Fowler, 1993; Finn and Jacobson, 2008;
Gillham, 2008).
Based on relevant previous research on construction risk management, and the input of local industry
experts, practitioners, and professionals, 37 risk factors, categorized under the previously indicated four
major groups, were identified and shortlisted as being influential on construction projects in the State of
Qatar. Table I presents the risk factors investigated, and related groups under which they were
categorized.
“Please insert Table I here”
The target population included classified civil engineering and building construction firms by the “Central
Tenders Committee” (CTC) of the State. The classification criteria for Qatari construction contractors are
based upon: (i) the credentials of the technical and administrative staff employed; (ii) equipment and tools
available; (iii) the financial position and strength; and (iv) previous experience. Consequently, a total
number of 126 organizations, classified under the first, second, and third categories, were identified
(CTC, 2011).
In order to obtain a statistically representative sample of the population, the formula shown in Equation 1
was used (Hogg and Tannis, 2009).
m
n= (1)
m −1
1+ ( )
Where: n, m and N represent the sample size of the limited, unlimited, and available population,
respectively. On the other hand, m is estimated by Equation 2.
z 2 * p * (1 − p )
m= (2)
ε2
Where: z is the statistic value for the confidence level used, i.e., 2.575, 1.96, and 1.645, for 99%, 95%,
and 90% confidence levels, respectively; p is the value of the population proportion which is being
estimated; and ε is the sampling error of the point estimate.
Since the value of p is unknown, Sincich et al. (2002) suggest a conservative value of 0.50 be used so that
a sample size that is at least as large as required be obtained. Using a 95% confidence level, i.e., 5%
significance level, the unlimited sample size of the population, m, is quantified by Equation 2, as follows:
(1.96) 2 * 0.50 * (1 − 0.50)

m= = 385
(0.05) 2
Therefore, for the total number of 126 classified contractors, i.e., N, the representative sample size of the
population required is determined by Equation 1, as shown below:

385
n= = 95
385 − 1
1+ ( )
126
The questionnaire comprised an ordinal measurement scale ranking the importance level of each factor
surveyed. In order to ensure a reasonable credibility of the outcomes, an ascending scale order ranging
from 1 to 5 was deemed most suitable for the research data collection instrument. The logic underlying
the range selected is twofold. On the one hand, a narrower range will, most probably, undermine the
validity and reliability of the results obtained, and on the other, a broader range may increase the
subjectivity level in the respondents’ output, which can further impair the robustness of the findings.
However, it is important to note that the numbers assigned to the scale do not indicate equal intervals or
absolute quantities, rather, the importance level of each factor, from the respondents’ perception.
Furthermore, in order to determine the prevalent contractors’ risk allocation response trend for each factor
investigated, the respondents were asked to choose one of the three risk allocation alternatives, that is,
“accept”, “mitigate”, or “transfer”.
To further establish a reasonable validity of the results obtained, and assess the reliability of the
questionnaire, a pilot test was conducted on a sample of prospective respondents, where the questionnaire
was distributed to 15 contractors for assessment and feedback. The aim of this test was four-fold: (a) to
assess the clarity, comprehensibility, interpretation, and appropriateness of the questions provided in
capturing the major risk factors considered by general contractors in Qatar; (b) to test the range adequacy
of response choices; (c) to assess the internal consistency of the questionnaire; and (d) to determine the
efficiency, with which the respondents complete the questionnaires.
Apart from minor comments, which were related to some contextual interpretations of few questions, the
respondents’ feedback was positive. The authors rearticulated such questions using simpler expressions
and incontrovertible background to avoid any future confounding of the framework, within which the
response of the participants was sought.
The internal consistency of the questionnaire was tested by computing the “Cronbach’s Alpha” of the sets
returned. The alpha coefficient ranges in value from 0 to 1, and is used to describe the reliability of
factors extracted from dichotomous, multi-point formatted, or ordinal rating scale questionnaires.
Cronbach’s alpha (α) is calculated by Equation 3 (Howitt and Cramer, 2008).

1− ∑ i
n  V 

α=   (3)
n −1 Vtest 
Where: n is the number of questions; Vi is the variance of scores on each question; and Vtest is the total
variance of the overall scores. The higher the alpha coefficient score, the more reliable the generated scale
is. Nunnaly (1978) indicated that a value of 0.700 is an acceptable reliability coefficient; nonetheless,
lower thresholds are commonly encountered in the literature.
Cronbach’s alpha for the sample group of contractors was computed by the Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS V18) software, where a coefficient value of 0.761 was obtained, which indicates
an acceptable measure of questionnaire reliability by all respondents. Therefore, a total of 110 randomly
chosen firms from the CTC list of classified contractors were approached to participate in the survey, and
followed up by phone calls, direct contacts, and frequent reminders. Nevertheless, due to the extensive
involvement of respondents with numerous projects underway, the data collection phase spanned
approximately nine months, after which, a total of 77 completed questionnaires were received,
representing approximately 81% of the required sample size. However, such a relatively high response
rate, suggests reasonable validity and reliability of the findings, which can further provide a robust
framework for other area-focused and comparative studies of construction risk management. The
respondents are considered senior ranking officials within their organizations, mainly comprising
technical directors, commercial managers, contracts administrators, and projects managers, with a
minimum practical experience of 15 years in the local construction industry.
Due to the ease, with which the comparative ranks of the factors surveyed can be cognized (Jarkas, 2013),
the “Relative Importance Index” (RII) technique, which value ranges from 0 (not inclusive) to 1, was used
in lieu of “mean ranking” to analyze the data collected (Kometa et al., 1994; Fugar and Agyakwah-Baah,
2010; Jarkas et al., 2012). The RII for each risk factor explored was quantified by the formula shown in
Equation 4.
5(n5) + 4(n4) + 3(n3) + 2(n2) + n1

RII = (4)
5(n1+ n2 + n3 + n4 + n5)
Where: n1; n2; n3; n4; and n5, are the number of respondents who selected: 1, for no importance; 2, for
little importance; 3, for moderate importance; 4, for strong importance; and 5, for very strong importance,
respectively.
The RII, which value ranges from 0 (not inclusive) to 1, was used to determine the rank of each factor
surveyed; the higher the RII value, the higher the importance the risk factor explored, as discerned by
general contractors operating in the State.
Moreover, the risk allocation response associated with each factor investigated, namely, “accept”,
“mitigate”, or “transfer”, was quantified and expressed as a percentage, based on the number of
respondents who selected a specific option, in relation to the total number of respondents, and therefore, it
became possible to determine the overall prevailing pattern of contractors’ attitudes toward risk
allocation, relative to each factor in the survey.
On the other hand, the rank for each of the four main groups, as perceived by contractors, was established
by quantifying the average value of the relative importance indices for all risk factors classified under.
The higher the average value, the higher the importance of the related group (Enshassi et al., 2007;
Sambasivan and Soon, 2007).
It is important to clarify at this stage that the current study was not intended to investigate the effects of
the risk factors on the specific key performance indicators of projects, that is, “time”, “cost”, or “quality”,
nor to explore the relationship or interaction between or among these factors. Rather, the main purpose
was to determine the “holistic” perception of the relative importance of the explored risk factors on the
overall project performance, and to establish the prevalent risk allocation trend, as discerned by a
statistically representative sample of contractors operating in Qatar.
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The perceived importance and allocation response of the 37 construction risk factors considered by
general contractors in Qatar were determined. The relative importance indices, ranks, and allocation
response of the factors surveyed are presented, discussed, and where possible, compared to previous
related findings. In addition, the average relative importance indices of the main groups were quantified,
and a comparison among their influence levels was carried out.
Table II depicts the relative importance indices, ranks achieved, and allocation response rates, for each
risk factor.
“Please insert Table II here”
According to the overall perceived importance of factors investigated, the outcomes show that the major
construction risk factors considered by general contractors in the State are the following: (1) slow
decision making process by client; (2) delay in payment process by client; (3) frequent change orders by
client; (4) errors and omissions in design drawings; (5) unavailability or shortage in specified materials;
(6) contractor’s financial difficulties; (7) clarity of drawings and technical specifications; (8) shortage in
technical staff and skilled labour; (9) late delivery of materials; and (10) delay in consultant’s response to
requests for information (RFI).
“Slow decision making process by client”, with an RII of 0.867, is perceived as the most dominant
construction risk factor considered by contractors practicing in Qatar. The results obtained are in
agreement with the findings of Assaf et al. (1995), Odeh and Battaineh (2002), Faridi and El-Sayegh
(2006), and Tumi et al. (2009), whose research studies have determined this factor among the critical
factors leading to construction time and cost overruns in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, and Libya,
respectively.
Important decisions are most often required by clients or clients’ representatives before physical
developments can commence or progress on construction sites. For instance, the formal approval of
shortlisted subcontractors, suppliers, MEP equipment and fixtures models, including trade-marks,
architectural facades, finishes and colour samples of materials, hard and soft landscape features, revised
plans, technical specifications and substitutions, must, in accordance with standard industry practices in
Qatar, be obtained from clients prior to materials procurement and commencement of related construction
activities. Consequently, the slow decision making process by clients can be detrimental to projects
progress, which justifies the common risk “transfer” response of contractors – as the results further
confirm – where 91% of the respondents transfer the ramifications of this factor to clients.
The inefficiency in clients’ decision making process can be ascribed, in whole or in part, to the following
reasons: (i) the clients’ hierarchical chain of approvals; (ii) the limited authority vested in clients’ staff,
especially those at the supervisory levels, to approve samples of proposed materials, alternatives or
substitutions; and (iii) the cultural perception, as the case with most developing countries, of possible
contractors’ favouritism in the case of prompt evaluation and acceptance of submissions (Al-Tabtabai,
2002), encourages clients’ representatives to either prolong the decision making process, or simply shift
such a responsibility toward the higher or top clients’ administrative staff, where the decision could be
delayed significantly.
With an RII of 0.854, “delay in payment process by client” ranks second among the factors explored,
which further corroborates the outcomes of Mansfield et al. (1994), Assaf et al. (1995), Sambasvian and
Soon (2007), Enshassi et al. (2008); Le-Hoai et al. (2008), Abd El-Razek et al. (2008), Fugar and
Agyakwah-Baah (2010), and Goh and Abdul-Rahman (2013), whose investigations have identified this
factor among the significant disruptive causes to construction performance in Nigeria, Saudi Arabia,
Indonesia, Palestine, Vietnam, Egypt, Ghana, and Malaysia, respectively.
Although this issue is closely associated with the clients’ decision making inefficacy, it may be further
attributed to the existing trend in the local construction industry, where the public sector remains the
largest client. Unlike the private sector, the process of payments has to undergo through a cycle of several
authoritative approvals which may impede the progress of construction, especially on large projects,
where the financial resources required may be even beyond the ability of consortiums, let alone single
contractors. Justifiably, the vast majority (93%) of the contractors surveyed opted for “transferring” the
consequences of such a bureaucratic procedure back to the “process owner”, that is, the client.
In further corroboration to the results obtained by Arditi et al. (1985), Chan and Kumaraswamy (1997),
Kaming et al. (1997), Koushki et al. (2005), Assaf and Al-Hejji (2006), Sweis et al. (2008), Motaleb and
Kishk (2010), and Goh and Abdul-Rahman (2013), whose studies asserted the adverse effects of
“frequent change orders by client” on the efficiency of the construction operation in Turkey, Hong Kong,
Indonesia, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, and Malaysia, respectively, with an RII of 0.833, the
importance of this risk factor, as perceived by respondents, comes in third in rank.
According to Parker (2002), a change order is defined as “works, processes, or methods that deviate from
original plans and specifications”. Frequent disruptions and redirection of works associated with change
orders can, not only result in prolongation in construction schedules, but also in labour productivity
degradation, demolition and rework, additional procurement activities, and possibly, disputes and
litigations, all of which necessitate “transferring” such corollaries to clients, as discerned by 95% of
respondents.
The significance of this risk factor can be related to the country’s social, cultural, and environmental
influence. The wealth created by the oil and gas industry has resulted in an expeditious growth and
expansion, most of which has taken place in the last ten years. Such a rush in developments, especially of
large and complex projects, has been attracting numerous international designers and construction firms, a
large number of, however, lacks the sufficient experience in the social, cultural, and physical environment
of the State, and hence, resulting in frequent changes to plans, materials specified, and contractual terms
and conditions. It may be reasoned, in addition, that some clients, especially those belonging to the
private sector, do not directly get involved in the various design stages of projects. Consequently, changes
are requested after physical developments have taken place.
Supporting the results obtained by Jarkas and Bitar (2012), whose research has identified
“constructability” as the most significant concept influencing construction productivity, and therefore, the
performance of projects in Kuwait, “errors and omissions in design drawings”, “clarity of drawings and
technical specifications”, and “delay in consultant’s response to requests for information (RFI)”, with
relative importance indices of 0.827, 0.773, and 0.742, rank fourth, seventh, and tenth, respectively,
among the 37 risk factors explored.
Constructability, commonly referred to as “Buildability” in Europe, as defined by the Construction
Industry Institute (CII), is “the optimum use of construction knowledge and experience in planning,
design, procurement, and field operations to achieve overall project objectives” (CII, 1986). An early
attempt to address this concept, however, can be credited to Sir Harold Emmerson (1962), when he
suggested a new form of relationship between designers and contractors. The point of concern was the
lack of cohesion between the two parties and their inability to see the whole construction process through
each other’s eyes.
Errors and omissions in design drawings, unclear and incomplete drawings and technical specifications,
uncoordinated design disciplines, i.e., architectural, structural, and MEP, or complex design schemes,
require continuous requests for information and clarifications, hence, consecutive disruptions to work
progress. Furthermore, possible revisions or substantial alterations may be required to design documents,
which can further lead to excessive delay in responding to contractors’ requests for information, and
possibly; complete halt of related activities, reworks, and ultimately, slippage in construction schedules.
All of such residuals, based on the vast majority of contractors’ discretion, further warrant a risk
“transfer” approach to their source.
The recognized risks of such constructability factors on the construction performance can be linked, in
whole or in part, to the following reasons: (a) the insufficient durations and tight schedules typically
imposed upon designers in the State, to develop and review design alternatives, related details,
specifications, and contract documents, and thus, tender documents are often incomplete, unclear, or
contain serious conflicts among the various disciplines involved; (b) the designers shortfall in applying
constructability principles, which may further suggest a lack of awareness on their part of the importance
of this concept to the successful progress of the construction operation; and (c) the deficiency of some
designers in providing quality work and efficient professional services.
With an RII of 0.816, “unavailability or shortage in specified materials” ranks fifth among the
construction risks factors investigated. This finding resonates with the outcomes of Mansfield et al.
(1994), Wiguna and Scott (2005), Sambasivan and Soon (2007), El-Sayegh (2008), Tumi et al. (2009),
and Jarkas et al. (2012), whose works have indentified this factor among the critical causes influencing
projects progress in Nigeria, Indonesia, Malaysia, UAE, Libya, and Qatar, respectively.
Although it may be reasonably argued that this finding is associated with designers’ lack of knowledge of
the local availability of the specified construction materials, the outcome can be further attributed to the
current “supply-demand” curve of construction materials, where, due to the rapid pace of developments in
Qatar, the demand for such materials, in relation to its local availability, is much higher, thus creating a
major shortage of supply to current projects. The outcome is conceivable as materials are essential to the
construction process, and therefore, work cannot be accomplished without them. Consequently,
unavailability, shortage, or interrupted supply of materials to jobsites leads to disruption of the workforce
momentum and progress of activities, which may further necessitate substitutions and alternatives
considerations, and therefore, can adversely affect the performance of projects.
The respondents, nevertheless, share “somewhat” different views on the allocation of this risk factor.
Whereas the majority of contractors (59%) selected the “transfer” route, a little over one-third of
practitioners (36%) decided on “mitigating” the risk impact through various approaches, for instance,
considering similar quality alternatives, resorting to direct and expedited shipment of materials from the
manufacturing sources, of course, at additional costs to be shared with clients, or in extreme cases, try to
negotiate inferior quality substitutes, if equivalent materials to those specified, cannot be procured within
reasonable time frames. However, a meagre 5% of contractors chose to retain this risk factor for other
reasons, such as, having or aiming to have a strategic relationship with clients, retaining adequate profit
margins that allow absorption of such risks, or enjoying special connections with certain suppliers or
vendors to grant them exclusive treatment or preference over others.
Corroborating the outcomes of Assaf et al. (1995), Mezher and Tawil (1998), Ghosh and Jintanapakanont
(2004); Abd El-Razek et al. (2008), Hlaing et al. (2008), Le-Hoai et al. (2008), Sweis et al. (2008),
Abdullah et al. (2010), Fugar and Agyakwah-Baah (2010), and Mahamid et al. (2013), whose
investigations have found “contractor’s financial difficulties” among the major determinants affecting
projects progress in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Thailand, Egypt, Singapore, Vietnam, Jordan, Malaysia,
Ghana, and Palestine, respectively, with an RII of 0.784, this factor ranks sixth, among the risk factors
examined in Qatar.
While this finding may be ascribable to contractors’ own financial mismanagement or underestimates of
construction cost, the risk allocation response rates determined suggest that the issue can be further
related to the delay in contractors’ payments process. As was previously indicated, delaying the process
of contractors’ payment applications can create financial overburdens on contractors to meet their
obligations toward their subcontractors, suppliers, technical staff, and direct labourers, and hence, this
may lead to a serious “knock-on” cash flow problem, where the financial stability of the whole chain is
impacted. As a result, subcontractors may stop works on sites, suppliers can restrict future deliveries,
technical staff, and operatives may consider leaving their current employers to take up employment with
other competitors. These, obviously have negative effects on construction performance.
Accordingly, the quantified risk allocation response reveals that the marginal majority (47%) of
respondents resorted to “retain” this risk, whereas 12% and 41% of contractors chose to “mitigate” and
“transfer” its impacts, respectively. However, the “retention” and “mitigation” responses may further
entail, respectively, the following two aspects: (i) the willingness of contractors to bear the consequences
of their own financial mismanagement; and (ii) the contractors’ recognition of the prevalent local trend in
payments process, especially those engaged in public contracts, and thus, allowing for sufficient
provisions to alleviate the financial hurdle during the lag periods between payments.
On the other hand, it can be reasonably inferred that respondents opting for the “transfer” course of action
may be related to a class of contractors, who possess financial management track-records in construction
that are too robust to decide on retaining the risk ramifications of such types of financial difficulties. It
may be further deduced that these contractors are of the view that effective “competitiveness” in bidding
practices, not only requires a reasonable accuracy in cost estimates, but also a “lean” approach, where
contingencies and provisions should be kept as minimum as practically possible. They, therefore, tend to
select the “transfer” response to possible risks that could arise as a result of clients’ actions or decisions.
“Shortage in technical staff and skilled labour”, with an RII of 0.758, comes in eighth in rank. This
outcome further confirms the results obtained by Assaf et al. (1995) and Jarkas et al. (2012), whose
research studies have identified “inadequate labour skills”, and “shortage of experienced labour”, among
the principle factors hindering the performance of construction projects in Saudi Arabia and Qatar,
respectively.
The employment of unskilled labour and poorly trained technical staff can be detrimental to projects
performance and progress. Unskilled operatives are commonly characterized with low and faulty outputs
coupled with unjustifiably high inputs. Their outputs, in addition, are almost always rejected, either in
whole or in part, by the inspection engineer, resulting in extensive and expensive rectifications, repairs, or
reworks. On the other hand, poorly trained technical staffs lack the skills required to effectively manage
the construction operation, which may result in unrealistic scheduling of activities, inefficient materials
procurement strategy and storage, inadequate application of construction methods, delay in
subcontracting work packages, and improper labour supervision.
The workforce of most contractors in Qatar comprises foreign operatives, where Qatari nationals are
mainly employed by the various technical and managerial sectors of the government. Therefore, the
Ministry of Labour, in an effort to organize, balance, and regulate foreign workers influx, imposes
predetermined quotas in terms of numbers and nationalities assigned to each contractor, which are based
upon the current workload and the number of projects undertaken. Therefore, the shortage in skilled
labour and technical staff can be attributed to the following two reasons: (a) the limited flexibility in
foreign recruitment available to contractors due to the restrictions imposed on granting work visa permits;
and (b) the accelerated developments, especially in the public construction sector, where the demand is
exceeding the supply of technical staff available (Jarkas et al., 2012).

This finding can be further linked to the possibility that contractors, whether local or international, tend to
take a short-term view of labour training and career developments of technical staff, especially those at
the site supervisory level. This situation may be largely due to the current workload and its fluctuation,
depending on the economic conditions and demand for construction, on the one hand, and the provisional
objectives of foreign operatives and staff of such an interim and transient employment, on the other.
The limitation in the availability of skilled construction workforce in Qatar is recognized by the majority
of respondents, where 82% of the contractors surveyed “accept” this risk factor, whereas only few, that is,
8% and 10%, endeavour to either “mitigate” or “transfer” the consequences, respectively.
With an RII of 0.751, “late delivery of materials” ranks ninth among the construction risk factors
investigated. This finding is in agreement with the outcomes reported by Al Momani (2000) and
Frimpong et al. (2003), whose studies have asserted the adverse influence of this factor on the progress of
the construction operation in Jordan and Ghana, respectively.
Although the result obtained can be further associated with the impacts of the previously discussed
factors, namely, the unavailability or shortage in construction materials, and the knock-on cash flow
problem resulting from the delay in processing contractors’ payments by clients, the prevalent risk
allocation rates discerned by contractors – a nearly equal split response between a “risk-retention” (45%)
and “risk transfer” (48%) feedback – suggest that the outcome may be, moreover, related to the following
causes: (i) poor planning and procurement management on contractors’ part; (ii) suppliers’ delinquency or
deficiency in providing the services required; or (iii) the fluctuation of prices associated with the
prevailing “supply-demand” cycle, where contractors choose, as a trade-off, to postpone materials
procurement, especially large quantity orders, until the lowest possible price is secured, and therefore, risk
incurring delays in material delivery to sites, and possible slippage in construction schedules.
Table III presents the quantified average RII and risk allocation response rate for each of the four major
groups, under which the risk factors explored are classified.

“Please insert Table III here”
Based on the results obtained, and consistent with the patterns reported by Al-Dubaisi (2000), Zou et al.
(2007), Jawad et al. (2009), Alnuaimi et al. (2010), and Haseeb et al. (2011), the contractors surveyed
perceived the risk factors related to the “client” group as most significant, followed by the “consultant”,
“contractor”, and “exogenous” group-related factors, respectively. The findings, moreover, show that the
“transfer” option is the contractors’ dominant response to risk factors belonging to “client” and
“consultant” groups, whereas the “retention” discretion is the prevalent trend associated with “contractor”
and “exogenous” group-related factors. Interestingly, however, the depicted pattern further reveals that,
with the exception of the risks classified under the “client” group, on average, the respondents share
tantamount views pertaining to the “mitigation” response to factors classified under the consultant,
contractor, and exogenous group-related factors.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Construction is a risky operation and risk identification is a challenging task as evidenced by projects
exceeding budget, going beyond schedule, and having compromised specifications (Hillson, 2002; Baloi
and Price, 2003; Barlish et al., 2013). This study, therefore, has identified, ranked the relative importance,
and determined the prevalent allocation response trends for the major construction risk factors considered
by general contractors operating in the State of Qatar.
Based on the overall perceived importance of factors surveyed, the findings show that the prominent
construction risk factors, in a descending order, are the following: (1) slow decision making process by
client; (2) delay in payment process by client; (3) frequent change orders by client; (4) errors and
omissions in design drawings; (5) unavailability or shortage in specified materials; (6) contractor’s
financial difficulties; (7) clarity of drawings and technical specifications; (8) shortage in technical staff
and skilled labour; (9) late delivery of materials; and (10) delay in consultant’s response to requests for
information (RFI).
The outcomes, in addition, suggest that the risks related to the “client” group are perceived as most
important, followed by the “consultant”, “contractor”, and “exogenous” group-related factors,
respectively. The results obtained further indicate that the “transfer” option is the contractors’ prevalent
response to “client” and “consultant” related-risks, while the “retention” decision is the principle pattern
linked to “contractor” and “exogenous” group-related risk factors.
It is a common objective among clients, consultants, contractors, and policy makers to improve the
performance level of the construction industry in the State. The findings of this study can assist in
achieving this goal by focusing and acting upon the significant risk factors perceived to adversely affect
the progress of projects.
The dominant respondents’ perception that the most critical construction risks are related to the client-
group, suggests that clients have an essential role in controlling the negative ramifications of the
associated factors, which may be reasonably attained by devising a “modus operandi” for an efficient
decision making process, processing contractors’ approved payments within a reasonable time frame, and
minimizing change and variation orders, especially during the construction stage of projects.
Such controlling measures can be further augmented by avoiding the bureaucracy in the decision making
process through empowering qualified clients’ representatives with adequate authorities to make the
technical and financial decisions required, which may, not only assist in expediting payments
applications, and hence, alleviate the pressure endured by contractors to finance the construction
operations and permits head-starts in materials procurement, especially “long-lead” items, but can also
prove useful in improving the efficiency, with which other technical and financial decisions are made by
clients. It may further be prudent for clients to secure, in advance, the finance required for projects
development, which is particularly relevant to private sector developers, in accordance with pre-
determined cash flow schemes, therefore, obviating cost and time overruns, in addition to possible quality
degradation.
This may only be efficacious if contractors reciprocate on such measures by successfully managing the
cash flow of projects undertaken, and plan, early enough in the process, an efficient and effective
materials procurement strategy to preclude potential late deliveries, especially in an environment that is
undergoing expeditious developments, and therefore, facing shortages in the availability of construction
materials, as the outcomes indicate.
The extent of change orders, especially during the construction stage, on the other hand, can be
minimized by the direct involvement of clients in the design phase of projects through authorized
representatives, as previously suggested, who can effectively review, evaluate, scrutinize, and render
timely feedback on the compatibility level of the various options and specifications proposed by
consultants with local traditions and environmental conditions for implementation prior to
commencement of construction activities on sites. This cause may be further promoted by appointing, in
the first instance, consultants who possess sufficient expertise in the State’s social, cultural, and physical
environment, and thus, with limited intervention from clients, can largely achieve projects’ objectives. As
a result, minor changes to drawings or specifications, should they become necessary along the course of
construction, can be implemented with minimum disruptions to projects progress.
Increasing the designers’ awareness of the significant effect of applying the constructability concept to the
construction operation is another subject, which can considerably help improving the performance of
projects, the results suggest. Such an approach may be supported by encouraging contract procurement or
project delivery methods, which allow the involvement of contractors during the design stage of projects,
such as, the Design-Build (DB), Design-Build-Operate-Transfer (DBOT), or Turnkey/Engineering,
Procurement, and Construction (EPC), and therefore, facilitate incorporating the construction experience
at the early stage of the projects development process, so that the associated benefits can be realized
during the execution phase (Iyer and Sagheer, 2012).

Perhaps, in view of the outcomes, relevant “Statutory Authorities” may further consider instigating a
formal constructability assessment application as a pre-condition for granting construction permits, where
minimum requirements of constructability principles, as suggested by Jarkas et al. (2012), must be
satisfied before a permit can be issued.
Policy makers in the State can, additionally, contribute in enhancing the performance of projects by
controlling the recruitment of inexperienced and unskilled construction workforce by developing an

effective screening process, especially for labour visa applications, and imposing minimum pre-requisite
conditions on the qualifications of applicants, such as authenticated proofs of credentials, professional
certification, sufficient construction experience, field or trade expertise, and communication skills in
either the English or Arabic language, which must be submitted along, and be a required part of the
application process.
Such a regulation, in addition to labour orientation with the local standard practices, policies and
procedures, on the one hand, and periodic training programs offered by construction firms to technical
personnel to keep them abreast of the latest technology available, on the other, can prove effective in
improving the quality level of the workforce, and may yield considerable savings in time, efforts, and
costs associated with the extensive training and development, which may otherwise be required for
unskilled operatives and poorly trained technical staff.
Notwithstanding that several findings have been drawn from this study, which may be further applicable
to other countries comprising the “Gulf Cooperation Council” (GCC), that is, in addition to Qatar;
Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates, mainly due to the sheer resemblance
among these nations with respect to cultural, economical, political, and environmental characteristics, it is
equally important to conclude that risks can be effectively managed when their “causes and effects” are
determined. Subsequently, it is recommended to explore and quantify the “effects” of the risk factors
explored, especially those perceived as most significant, which can, in addition, assist in corroborating the
outcomes of this investigation.
The ramifications of construction risk “mismanagement”, should be further researched through an
integrated approach geared toward assessing the relationship and correlation among the risks investigated,
on the one hand, and quantifying their tangible impacts on “time and cost overruns”, “compromised
quality”, “claims and disputes”, in addition to “arbitration and/or litigation”, on the other. The objective is
that all parties involved in the construction operation, namely, clients, consultants, contractors, and policy
makers, can be in a better position to reasonably evaluate the possible corollaries of these factors on the
enterprise performance, financial investments, and relationships. They would be, as a result, equipped
with practical guidance to mitigate, control, or effectively manage such consequences, in a climate on
the verge of witnessing a boom in demand for expeditious delivery, restrained cost, and acceptable quality
of constructed projects.
REFERENCES
Abbasi, G., Abdel-Jaber, M., and Abu-Khadejeh, A. (2005). “Risk Analysis for the Major Factors
Affecting the Construction Industry in Jordan.” Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, 10(1), 41-47.
Abd El-Razek, M., Bassioni, H., and Mobarak, A. (2008). “Causes of Delays in Building Construction
Projects in Egypt.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 134(11), 831-841.
Abdou, O. (1996). “Managing Construction Risks.” Journal of Architectural Engineering, ASCE, 2(1), 3-
10.
Abdullah, M., Rahman, I., and Abdul Aziz, A. (2010). “Causes of Delay in MARA Management
Procurement Construction Projects.” Journal of Surveying, Construction and Property, 1(1), 123-138.
Ackroyd, S., and Hughes, J. (1981). Data Collection in Context, London: Longman, UK.
Akintoye, A. and MacLeod, M. (1997). “Risk Analysis and Management in Construction.” International
Journal of Project Management, 15(1), 31-38.
Al-Bahar, J. (1990). “Systematic Risk Management Aproach for Construction Projects.” Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 116(3), 49-55.
Al-Dubaisi, A. (2000). Change Orders in Construction Projects in Saudi Arabia. M.S. Thesis, King Fahd
University of Petroleum and Minerals, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Al-Momani, A. (2000). “Construction Delay: A Quantitative Analysis.” International Journal of Project
Management, 18(1), 51-59.
Alnuaimi, A., Taha, R., and Al Mohsin, M. (2010). “Causes, Effects, Benefits, and Remedies of Change
Orders on Public Construction Projects in Oman,” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE, 136(5), 615-622.

Al-Tabtabai, H. (2002). “Causes for Delays in Construction Projects in Kuwait.” Engineering Journal of
Qatar University, 15, 19-37.
Arditi, D., Akan, G., and Gurdamar, S. (1985). “Reasons for Delays in Public Projects in Turkey.”
Construction Management and Economics, 3(2), 171-181.
Artto, K. (1999). Development of World-Class Practices in Project Companies. In: The Future of Project
Management, Project Management Institute Research Series, 127-137, Project Management Institute
(PMI), Newtown Square, PA, USA.
Assaf, S. and Al-Hejji, S. (2006). “Causes of Delay in Large Construction Projects.” International
Assaf, S., Al-Khalil, M., and Al-Hazmi, M. (1995). “Causes of Delays in Large Building Construction
Projects.” Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, 11(2), 45-50.
Baccarini, D. and Archer, R. (2001). “The Risk Ranking of Projects: A Methodology.” International
Baloi, D. and Price, A. (2003). “Modeling Global Risk Factors Affecting Construction Cost
Performance.” International Journal of Project Management, 21(4), 261-269.
Barlish, K., De Marco, A., and Thaheem, M. (2013). “Construction Risk Taxonomy: An International
Convergence of Academic and Industry Perspectives.” American Journal of Applied Sciences, 10(7), 706-
713.
Berk, C. and Kartal, C. (2012). “Determining Major Risk Factors in Construction Projects from the View
Point of Life Cycle and Stakeholder.” International Journal of Business and Management Studies, 4(2),
11-20.
Carter, R. and Doherty, N. (1974). Handbook of Risk Management. Kluwer-Harrap Handbooks, London,
UK.
Chan, D. and Kumaraswamy, M. (1997). “A Comparative Study of Causes of Time Overruns in Hong
Kong Construction Projects.” International Journal of Project Management, 15(1), 55-63.
Chapman, C, and Cooper, D. (1983). “Risk Engineering: Basic Controlled Interval and Memory Models.”
Journal of the Operational Research Society, 34(1), 51-60.

CIA (2011). The World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC, available at:
http://www.cia.gov./library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ku.html (accessed 17 November 2011).
CII (1986). Constructability: A primer. Construction Industry Institute (CII), Publication 3-1: University
of Texas at Austin, TX, USA.
Construction Week (2010). Qatar 2022 World Cup Facts for Contractors. 09 December 2010, available at:
www.constructionweekonline.com/article-10407-22-qatar-2022-world-cup-facts-for-contractors
(accessed 07 March 2011).
Cretu, O., Stewart, R., and Berends, T. (2011). Risk Management for Design and Construction, John
Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA.
CTC (2011). Classified Companies, Central Tenders Committee (CTC). State of Qatar, available at:
www.ctc.gov.qa/class-en.aspx (accessed 03 January 2011).
Edwards, P. and Bowen, P. (1998). “Risk and Risk Management in Construction: A Review and Future
Directions for Research.” Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 5(4), 339-349.
El-Sayegh, S. (2008). “Risk Assessment and Allocation in the UAE Construction Industry.” International

Emmerson, H. (1962). Survey of Problems before the Construction Industries. Ministry of Works,
HMSO, London, UK.
Enshassi, A., Mohamed, S., Abu Mustafa, Z., and Mayer, P. (2007). “Factors Affecting Labour
Productivity in Building Projects in the Gaza Strip.” Journal of Civil Engineering and Management,
13(4), 245-254.
Enshassi, A., Mohamed, S., and Abu Mosa, J. (2008). “Risk Management in Building Projects in
Palestine: Contractors’ Perspectives.” Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, 13(1), 29-44.
Faridi, A., and El-Sayegh, S. (2006). “Significant Factors Causing Delay in the UAE Construction
Industry.” Construction Management and Economics, 24(11), 1167-1176.
Finn, J. and Jacobson, M. (2008). Just Practice: A Social Justice Approach to Social Work. Eddie Bowers
Publishing, Peosta, IL, USA.
Fowler, F. (1993). Survey Research Methods. 2nd Ed., Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, USA.
Franke, A. (1987). “Risk Analysis in Project Management.” International Journal of Project
Management, 5(1), 29-34.
Frimpong, Y., Oluwoye, J., and Crawford, L. (2003). “Causes of Delay and Cost Overruns in
Construction of Groundwater Projects in a Developing Country: Ghana as a Case Study.” International
Fugar, F. and Agyakwah-Baah, A. (2010). “Delays in Building Construction Projects in Ghana.”
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 10(1/2), 103-116.

Ghosh, S. and Jintanapakanont, J. (2004). “Identifying and Assessing the Critical Risk Factors in an
Underground Rail Project in Thailand: A Factor Analysis Approach.” International Journal of Project
Management, 22(8), 633-643.
Gillham, B. (2008). Developing a Questionnaire. 2nd Ed., Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd.,
London, UK.
Goh, C. and Abdul-Rahman, H. (2013). “The Identification and Management of Major Risks in the
Malaysian Construction Industry.” Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 18(1), 19-32.
Hanna, A., Thomas, G., and Swanson, J. (2013). “Construction Risk Identification and Allocation:
Cooperative Approach.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 139(9), 1098-
1107.
Haseeb, M., Xinhai, L., Aneesa, B., and Maloof-ud-Dyian, R. (2011). “Causes and Effects of Delays in
Large Construction Projects in Pakistan.” Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and
Management Review, 1(4), 18-42.
Hertz, D. and Thomas, H. (1983). Risk Analysis and its Application. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., NY,
USA.
Hillson, D. (2000). Developing Effective Risk Response. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Project
Management Institute Seminars and Symposium, 10-16 October 1999, Sylva, NC, Project Management
Institute, USA.
Hillson, D. (2002). “Extending the Risk Process to Manage Opportunities.” International Journal of
Project Management, 20(3), 235-240.

Hlaing, N., Singh, D., Tiong, R., and Ehrlich, M. (2008). “Perceptions of Singapore Construction
Contractors on Construction Risk Identification.” Journal of Financial Management of Property and
Construction, 13(2), 85-95.
Hogg, R. and Tannis, E. (2009). Probability and Statistical Inferences. 8th Ed., Prentice Hall, NJ, USA.
Howitt, D., and Cramer, D. (2008). Introduction to Statistics in Psychology, 4th Ed., Pearson, Essex, UK.
Hwang, B., Zhao, X., and Ng. S. (2013). “Identifying the Critical Factors Affecting Schedule
Performance of Public Housing Projects.” Habitat International, 38(April), 214-221.
Iyer, K. and Sagheer, M. (2012). “Optimization of Bid-Winning Potential and Capital Structure for Build-
Operate-Transfer Road Projects in India.” Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, 28(2), 104-
113.
Jaafari, A. (2001). “Management of Risks, Uncertainties and Opportunities on Projects: Time for a
Fundamental Shift.” International Journal of Project Management, 19(2), 89-101.
Jarkas, A. (2013). “Primary Factors Influencing Bid Mark-Up Size Decisions of General Contractors in
Kuwait.” Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 18(1), 53-75.
Jarkas, A., and Bitar, C. (2012). “Factors Affecting Construction Labor Productivity in Kuwait.” Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 138(7), 811-820.
Jarkas, A., Kadri, C., and Younes, J. (2012). “A Survey of Factors Influencing the Productivity of
Construction Operatives in the State of Qatar.” International Journal of Construction Management, 12(3),
1-23.
Jawad, R., Abdulkader, M., and Ali, A. (2009). “Variation Orders in Construction Projects.” Journal of
Engineering and Applied Sciences, 4(3), 170-176.

Kaming, P., Olomolaiye, P., Holt, G., and Harris, F. (1997). “Factors Influencing Craftsmen’s
Productivity in Indonesia.” International Journal of Project Management, 15(1), 21-30.
Kansal, R. and Sharma, M. (2012). “Risk Assessment Methods and Application in the Construction
Projects.” International Journal of Modern Engineering Research, 2(3), 1081-1085.
Kartam, N. and Kartam, S. (2001). “Risk and its Management in the Kuwaiti Construction Industry: A
Contractors’ Perspective.” International Journal of Project Management, 19(6), 325-335.

Kelly, P. (1996). Team Decision-Making Technique. Richard Chang Associates, Inc., USA.
Kometa, S., Olomolaiye, P., and Harris, F. (1994). “Attributes of UK Construction Clients Influencing
Project Consultants’ Performance.” Construction Management and Economics, 12(5), 433-443.
Koushki, P., Al-Rashid, K., and Kartam, N. (2005). “Delays and Cost Increases in the Construction of
Private Residential Projects in Kuwait.” Construction Management and Economics, 23(3), 285-294.
Le-Hoai, L., Lee, Y., and Lee, J. (2008). “Delays and Cost Overruns in Vietnam Large Construction
Projects: A Comparison with other Selected Countries.” KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 12(6), 367-
377.
Loosemore, M., Raftery, J., Reilly, C., and Higgon, D. (2006). Risk Management in Projects. 2nd Ed.,
Taylor and Francis, Oxon, UK.
Mahamid, I. (2013). “Common Risks Affecting Time Overrun in Road Construction Projects in Palestine:
Contractors’ Perspective.” Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 13(2), 45-53.
Mansfield, N., Ugwu, O., and Doran, T. (1994). “Causes of Delay and Cost Overruns in Nigerian
Construction Projects.” International Journal of Project Management, 12(4), 254-260.

Mezher, T. and Tawil, W. (1998). “Causes of Delays in the Construction Industry in Lebanon.”
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 5(3), 252-260.
Mustafa, M. and Al-Bahar, J. (1991). “Project Risk Analytic Assessment using Hierarchy Process.” IEEE
Transaction on Engineering Management, 38(1), 46-52.
Mutaleb, O. and Kishk, M. (2010). “An Investigation into Causes and Effects of Construction Delays in
UAE.” In: Egbu, C. (Ed) Proceedings of the 26th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September 2010,
Leeds, UK, 1149-1157.
Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, NY, USA.
Odeh, A. and Battaineh, H. (2002). “Causes of Construction Delay: Traditional Contracts.” International
Parker, M. (2002). Dynamics Change for Fast-Tracking Construction Project, Proceedings of the 19th
ISARC, International Association for Automation and Robotics in Construction, Washington, USA, 81-
89.
Perera, B., Dhanasinghe, I., and Rameezdeen, R. (2009). “Risk Management in Road Construction: The
Case of Sri Lanka.” International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 13(2), 87-102.
Perry, J. and Hayes, R. (1985). Risk and its Management in Construction Projects. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineering, Part 1, 78, 499-521.
PMBOK® (2008). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®). 4th Ed., Project
Management Institute, Inc., Newtown Square, PA, USA.

QER (2004). Gross Domestic Product, Qatar Economic Review (QER). Qatar National Bank, Economic
Information Presented by the Permanent Mission of the State of Qatar to the United Nations Office in
Geneva, available at: www.qatarmission.ch/gross_domestic_product.html (accessed 06 February 2011).
Rezakhani, P. (2012). “Fuzzy MCDM Model for Risk Factor Selection in Construction Projects.”
International Journal of Sustainable Construction Engineering and Technology, 3(2), 11-24.
Sambasivan, M. and Soon, Y. (2007). “Causes and Effects of Delays in Malaysian Construction
Industry.” International Journal of Project Management, 25(5), 517-526.
Santoso, D., Ogunlana, S., and Minato, T. (2003). “Assessment of Risks in High Rise Building
Construction in Jakarta.” Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 10(1), 43-55.
Shen, L. (1997). “Project Risk Management in Hong Kong.” International Journal of Project
Management, 15(2), 101-105.
Sincich, T., Levine, D., and Stephan, D. (2002). Practical Statistics by Example using Microsoft® Excel
and Minitab®. 2nd Ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.
Sweis, G., Sweis, R., Abu Hammad, A., and Shboul, A. (2008). “Delays in Construction Projects: The
Case of Jordan.” International Journal of Project Management, 26(6), 665-674.
Tadayon, M., Jaafar, M., and Nasri, E. (2012). “An Assessment of Risk Identification in Large
Construction Projects in Iran.” Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 17(Supp. 1), 57-69.
Tah, J. and Carr, V. (2000). “A Proposal for Construction Project Risk Assessment using Fuzzy Logic.”
Construction Management and Economics, 18(4), 491-500.
Thompson, P. and Perry, J. (1992). Engineering Construction Risk Management: A Guide to Project Risk
Analysis and Risk Management. Thomas Telford, London, UK.

Tumi, S., Omran, A., and Pakir, A. (2009). Causes of Delay in Construction Industry in Libya. The
International Conference on Economics and Administration, 14-15 November 2009, Faculty of
Administration and Business, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania, 265-272.
Turkey, W. (2011). Risk Factors Leading to Cost Overrun in Ethiopian Federal Road Construction
Projects and its Consequences. M.S. Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Uher, T. and Toakley, A. (1999). “Risk Management in the Conceptual Phase of a Project.” International
Wang, J. and Yuan, H. (2011). “Factors Affecting Contractors’ Risk Attitudes in Construction Projects:
Case Study from China.” International Journal of Project Management, 29(2), 209-219.
Ward, S. and Chapman, C. (1997). Project Risk Management: Processes, Techniques and Insights. John
Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK.
Wiguna, I. and Scott, S. (2005). Nature of the Critical Risk Factors Affecting Project Performance in
Indonesian Building Contracts. In: Khosrowshahi, F. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual ARCOM
Conference, 7-9 September 2005, SOAS, University of London, UK, Association of Researchers in
Construction Management, Vol. 1, 225-235.
Zhi, H. (1995). “Risk Management for Overseas Construction Projects.” International Journal of Project
Management, 13(4), 231-237.
Zou, P., Zhang, G., and Wang, J. (2007). “Understanding the Key Risks in Construction Projects in
China.” International Journal of Project Management, 25(6), 601-614.
Zuofa, T. and Ochieng, E. (2011). Project Managers Perception of Risk Factors in Heavy Engineering
Construction Projects: Case of Offshore Projects. In: Egbu, C. and Lou, E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th
Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2011, Bristol, UK, Association of Researchers in
Construction Management, 985-993.

Table I. Construction Risk Factors Considered by General Contractors in Qatar and Related Groups
No. Risk Factor Related Group
1 Client’s Financial Stability Client

2 Delay in Payment Process by the Client Client
3 Frequent Change Orders by Client Client
4 Frequent Changes in Client’s Decision-Making Authority Client
5 Slow Decision Making Process by Client Client
6 Unrealistic Contract Duration of the Project Client
7 Clarity of Drawings and Technical Specifications Consultant
8 Delay in Consultant’s Approval of Materials Submission Consultant
9 Delay in Consultant’s Approval of Shop Drawings Consultant

10 Delay in Consultant’s Response to Requests for Information (RFI) Consultant
11 Delay in Contractor’s Payment Certification by the Consultant Consultant
12 Design Complexity Consultant
13 Errors and Omissions in Design Drawings Consultant
14 Lack of Coordination among Design Disciplines Consultant
15 Stringent Inspection by the Engineer Consultant
16 Contractor’s Financial Difficulties Contractor
17 Contractor’s Previous Experience with Client Contractor
18 Contractor’s Previous Experience with Consultant Contractor
19 Contractor’s Underestimate of Construction Cost Contractor
20 Defective Workmanship and Rework Contractor
21 Lack of Experience in Similar Projects Contractor
22 Late Delivery of Materials Contractor
23 Major Accidents on Site Contractor
24 Poor Labour Productivity Contractor
25 Poor Performance of Subcontractors Contractor
26 Delay in Statutory Approvals and Permits Exogenous
27 Escalation in Material Prices Exogenous
28 Frequent Changes in Statutory Regulations Exogenous
29 Inclement Weather Exogenous
30 Project Location Exogenous
31 Projections of Economic Conditions Exogenous
32 Shortage in Technical Staff and Skilled Labour Exogenous
33 Site Orientation and Restricted Access Exogenous
34 Unavailability of Equipment Required Exogenous
35 Unavailability of Sufficient Storage Space around or on Site Exogenous
36 Unavailability or Shortage in Specified Materials Exogenous
37 Unforeseen Ground Conditions Exogenous
Table II. Relative Importance Indices, Ranks Achieved, and Allocation Response Rates of Construction Risk
Factors Considered by General Contractors in Qatar
Risk Allocation Response

Rates Related
Risk Factor RII Rank
Group
Retain Mitigate Transfer
Slow Decision Making Process by Client 0.867 1 7% 2% 91% Client
Delay in Payment Process by Client 0.854 2 3% 4% 93% Client
Frequent Change Orders by Client 0.833 3 2% 3% 95% Client
Errors and Omissions in Design Drawings 0.827 4 4% 8% 88% Consultant
Unavailability or Shortage in Specified Materials 0.816 5 5% 36% 59% Exogenous
Contractor’s Financial Difficulties 0.784 6 47% 12% 41% Contractor

Clarity of Drawings and Technical Specifications 0.773 7 6% 11% 83% Consultant
Shortage in Technical Staff and Skilled Labour 0.758 8 82% 8% 10% Exogenous
Late Delivery of Materials 0.751 9 45% 7% 48% Contractor
Delay in Consultant’s Response to Requests for
0.742 10 6% 9% 85% Consultant
Information (RFI)
Client’s Financial Stability 0.738 11 2% 4% 94% Client
Contractor’s Previous Experience with Client 0.729 12 34% 29% 37% Contractor
Poor Performance of Subcontractors 0.712 13 40% 14% 46% Contractor
Projections of Economic Conditions 0.685 14 83% 7% 10% Exogenous
Stringent Inspection by the Engineer 0.679 15 78% 25% 7% Consultant
Frequent Changes in Statutory Regulations 0.667 16 2% 6% 92% Exogenous
Escalation in Material Prices 0.653 17 51% 39% 10% Exogenous
Delay in Statutory Approvals and Permits 0.638 18 1% 4% 95% Exogenous
Lack of Coordination among Design Disciplines 0.624 19 14% 15% 71% Consultant
Unrealistic Contract Duration of the Project 0.619 20 77% 15% 8% Client
Poor Labour Productivity 0.608 21 35% 21% 44% Contractor
Inclement Weather 0.602 22 44% 41% 15% Exogenous
Design Complexity 0.585 23 50% 42% 8% Consultant
Unforeseen Ground Conditions 0.556 24 5% 8% 87% Exogenous
Defective Workmanship and Rework 0.542 25 43% 17% 40% Contractor
Lack of Experience in Similar Projects 0.533 26 47% 51% 2% Contractor
Contractor’s Previous Experience with Consultant 0.527 27 67% 20% 13% Contractor
Contractor’s Underestimate of Construction Cost 0.511 28 72% 20% 8% Contractor
Project Location 0.479 29 84% 4% 12% Exogenous
Delay in Consultant’s Approval of Shop Drawings 0.468 30 7% 17% 76% Consultant
Delay in Contractor’s Payment Certification by the
0.446 31 10% 26% 64% Consultant
Consultant
Unavailability of Sufficient Storage Space around
0.437 32 61% 33% 6% Exogenous
or on Site
Delay in Consultant’s Approval of Materials
0.403 33 5% 22% 73% Consultant
Submission
Frequent Changes in Client’s Decision-Making
0.381 34 3% 12% 85% Client
Authority
Site Orientation and Restricted Access 0.354 35 81% 14% 5% Exogenous
Major Accidents on Site 0.338 36 1% 3% 96% Contractor
Unavailability of Equipment Required 0.302 37 68% 26% 6% Exogenous
Table III. Risk Related Group Average Relative Importance Indices, Risk Allocation Average Response Rates, and
Group Ranks Achieved
Related Number of Risk Average Risk Allocation Average Response Rates

Group Rank
Group Factors Surveyed RII Retain Mitigate Transfer
Client 6 0.697 15% 7% 78% 1

Consultant 9 0.616 20% 19% 61% 2
Contractor 10 0.604 43% 19% 38% 3
Exogenous 12 0.579 47% 19% 34% 4

Jarkas, A. M., & Haupt, T. C. (2015) - Major Construction Risk Factors Considered by General Contractors in Qatar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jarkas, A. M., & Haupt, T. C. (2015) - Major Construction Risk Factors Considered by General Contractors in Qatar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology

Major construction risk factors considered by general contractors in Qatar:

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

general contractors operating in the State of Qatar. Design/methodology/approach – A structured

described risk as “the potential for unexpected consequences of an activity.”

(Loosemore et al., 2006).

whole risk management plan is underpinned (Kansal and Sharma, 2012).

facilities (Construction Week, 2010).

associated with venturing into an unknown and culturally different environment.

base given the knowledge gap for the State of Qatar.

factors identified on the development process of construction projects in the State.

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

shallow knowledge of its principles.

2.1 PREVIOUS FINDINGS

construction equipment maintenance, as most significant.

failure; and (j) subcontractor lack of adequate number of staff.

activities, on the other.

of clients; and (v) changes in design.

contract provisions; (i) unstable politics; and (g) accidents.

inadequate site investigation and right of way problems.

(ii) coordination among various parties; and (iii) availability of labourers.

competitions in bids; and (f) the political situation.

2.2 RISK CLASSIFICATIONS

contractual risks; and (d) managerial risks.

geotechnical; (ix) communications; (x) legal; and (xi) social.

factors partitioned vary in their importance level.

factors; and (iv) exogenous-related factors.

2.3 RISK ANALYSIS AND RESPONSE STRATEGIES

the quantitative approach remains the preferred option by most practitioners.

widely used by contractors.

payments by consultants, frequent changes and variations, appointment of unqualified representatives,

approvals, and changes in statutory regulations.

albeit, is “independently” recognized by most contractors, and is commonly, yet unconnectedly,

provisioned for under the bid contingency funds.

and risk handling capabilities (Hillson, 2000; Perera et al., 2009).

“Please insert Table I here”

was used (Hogg and Tannis, 2009).

respectively. On the other hand, m is estimated by Equation 2.

estimated; and ε is the sampling error of the point estimate.

(1.96) 2 * 0.50 * (1 − 0.50)

population required is determined by Equation 1, as shown below:

“accept”, “mitigate”, or “transfer”.

efficiency, with which the respondents complete the questionnaires.

response of the participants was sought.

Cronbach’s alpha (α) is calculated by Equation 3 (Howitt and Cramer, 2008).

lower thresholds are commonly encountered in the literature.

minimum practical experience of 15 years in the local construction industry.

5(n5) + 4(n4) + 3(n3) + 2(n2) + n1

general contractors operating in the State.

allocation, relative to each factor in the survey.

Sambasivan and Soon, 2007).

statistically representative sample of contractors operating in Qatar.

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

and a comparison among their influence levels was carried out.

“Please insert Table II here”

requests for information (RFI).

Indonesia, Palestine, Vietnam, Egypt, Ghana, and Malaysia, respectively.

importance of this risk factor, as perceived by respondents, comes in third in rank.

are requested after physical developments have taken place.

among the 37 risk factors explored.

Constructability, commonly referred to as “Buildability” in Europe, as defined by the Construction

each other’s eyes.

“transfer” approach to their source.