See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329981926

Causes of Delays on Construction Projects: A Comprehensive List

Article in International Journal of Managing Projects in Business · December 2018

DOI: 10.1108/IJMPB-09-2018-0178

CITATIONS READS

131 31,816

2 authors:

Serdar Durdyev M. Reza Hosseini

Ara Institute of Canterbury Deakin University
91 PUBLICATIONS 2,759 CITATIONS 243 PUBLICATIONS 7,527 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Serdar Durdyev on 09 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1753-8378.htm

Causes of
Causes of delays on construction delays on
projects: a comprehensive list construction
projects
Serdar Durdyev
Department of Engineering and Architectural Studies,
Ara Institute of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, and
M. Reza Hosseini Received 6 September 2018
School of Architecture and Built Environment, Revised 19 December 2018
Accepted 28 December 2018
Deakin University, Geelong, Australia

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a systematic review of studies on CPD published between
1985 and 2018.
Design/methodology/approach – Before identifying common CPD, research trends were examined in
terms of the number of publications in selected journals, as well as the contributions made by countries,
institutions and researchers.
Findings – The findings reveal that researchers from developing countries have contributed the most to
identifying the causes of CPD. A total of 149 causes of CPD were identified in a thorough review of 97 selected
studies. Weather/climate conditions, poor communication, lack of coordination and conflicts between
stakeholders, ineffective or improper planning, material shortages, financial problems, payment delays,
equipment/plant shortage, lack of experience/qualification/competence among project stakeholders, labour
shortages and poor site management were identified as the ten most common CPDs.
Originality/value – Being the first study of its type, this study provides insight into the research output
related to this area and identifies a common set of CPDs, which may provide a better understanding of the key
areas requiring attention where steps should be taken to minimise or control factors causing delays in
construction projects.
Keywords Construction, Systematic literature review, Project delays
Paper type Literature review

Introduction
Completion of a project within the stipulated time frame is considered to be one of the critical
factors for project success (Chan and Kumaraswamy, 1997). However, the majority of
construction projects face schedule delays and this issue has become a chronic problem
worldwide (Doloi, Sawhney and Iyer, 2012; Doloi, Sawhney, Iyer and Rentala, 2012; Durdyev
et al., 2017). In general, project delay is defined as an overrun beyond the scheduled project
completion time (Assaf and Al-Hejji, 2006). From a different perspective, Zack (2003) defines
project delay as activity that extends the time required to deliver the project, which
manifests itself as additional days of work.
A plethora of studies have addressed the issue of project delay and identified its main
causes according to country, region, project type and procurement methods, as well as from
the perspectives of various stakeholders (Lessing et al., 2017; Hampton et al., 2012; Oyegoke
and Al Kiyumi, 2017; Yang et al., 2010). Delays significantly hinder project performance
(González et al., 2014). For example, Doloi, Sawhney and Iyer (2012) and Doloi, Sawhney, Iyer
and Rentala (2012) applied factor analysis to explore the causes of delay in construction
projects in India. Durdyev et al. (2017) reported the results of a study of the factors causing
project delays in residential projects in Cambodia. Kadry et al. (2017) evaluated the causes of
construction delay, limiting the scope of their study to the geopolitically risky countries. In a
International Journal of Managing
recently published paper, Santoso and Soeng (2016) analysed the causes of delays in road Projects in Business
projects. A review of the literature on project delays indicates that there is global interest in © Emerald Publishing Limited
1753-8378
examining the factors responsible for CPD. DOI 10.1108/IJMPB-09-2018-0178
IJMPB Few studies have reviewed the CPDs. Ansah and Sorooshian (2018) have proposed a
theoretical framework, the 4P project delays, grouping them based on their shared
characteristics. Adam et al. (2017) conducted a literature analysis to provide an aggregated
ranking of project delays, which was limited to 40 journal articles reporting on delays in publicly
funded construction projects. Eizakshiri et al. (2015) reviewed a range of studies reporting
project delays to identify gaps and to propose further research questions on the subject.
However, due to their limitations, these studies do not provide a longitudinal view of studies
reporting the CPD. Among the most comprehensive reviews prior to the commencement of this
study are that of Ramanathan et al. (2012) and Zidane and Andersen (2018). Ramanathan et al.
(2012) only reviewed studies published prior to 2010 and Zidane and Andersen (2018) had a bias
towards the factors applicable to Norway. Despite their undeniable contributions, both studies
are affected by restrictions in terms of their scope and available space, and therefore are limited
in terms of covering exiting major studies. For instance, Zidane and Andersen (2018) reported
that there was only one study conducted in Europe, which is in Portugal. However, this study
reveals that there are two studies reported from Denmark. Moreover, only three studies from
Palestine were reviewed by Zidane and Andersen (2018), while there are six studies reported up
to date. With the above in mind, the major point of departure of the present study is its wider
coverage, a reproducible method, as well as offering an updated, more comprehensive and
descriptive picture of the now-available literature on the topic.
There is therefore a need for a longitudinal review of the existing body of knowledge to
identify a universal set of causes of delay that affect construction project performance. In so
doing, understanding the trends and investigating the developments in a particular research
area is vital (Hong et al., 2012; Tsai and Wen, 2005). Therefore, this study aims to fill this
research gap by investigating the annual publication trends in studies of the CPDs since 1985,
the year the first paper was published on this topic; the country of origin of the authors of
these studies; the types of project on which these studies were conducted; the identification of
CPDs; and the significant findings of these studies. Being the first study of its type, this study
provides insight into the research output related to this area and identifies a common set of
CPDs, which may provide a better understanding of the key areas requiring attention where
steps should be taken to minimise or control factors causing delays in construction projects.
It is worth mentioning that due to the idiosyncrasies of construction projects: dynamic
features (site-specific) of construction projects, labour-intensive nature, involvement of various
stakeholders, fragmented supply chain, high reliance on a wide range of suppliers of materials
and equipment and dominance of SMEs, this study focuses solely on construction projects,
rather than delays on projects in general (Hosseini et al., 2013).

Background
The five most common types of project delay addressed in the literature include critical and
non-critical; concurrent, compensable and excusable delays (Enshassi et al., 2009). Critical and
non-critical delays concern the progress of an activity on a critical path and affect (or not) the
scheduled project completion date. Concurrent delays involve the occurrence of at least two
independent delays at the same time. Unforeseeable delays are those that are beyond the
contractor’s control, and can be categorised as compensable and/or excusable types, while
non-excusable delays are within the contractor’s control (Lepage, 2017). All these types of
delay affect the management of a project. While internal delays arise from the project
stakeholders, external delays emanate from the third parties involved within the project
delivery process (i.e. utility service providers, government authorities, labour unions, etc.).
Research on the CPDs has attracted considerable attention for decades now. A review of the
studies on this subject reveals various research approaches: evaluation of the factors causing
project delay (Chiu and Lai, 2017); case studies analysing project delays; and comparative
studies on project delays between different countries (Shebob et al., 2012). Sambasivan and
Soon (2007) report the most prominent causes of delay as being due to inadequate planning, Causes of
poor site management, contractor experience, subcontractors and the client’s financial delays on
capability. A study from Saudi Arabia identifies the most critical causes as being the client’s construction
financial capability and payment delays by owners (Al-Kharashi and Skitmore, 2009). Doloi,
Sawhney and Iyer (2012) and Doloi, Sawhney, Iyer and Rentala (2012) report the factors projects
causing delays in Indian construction projects, which include site management and
coordination problems; lack of commitment and communication; poor planning; unclear project
scope; and substandard contracts. Lindhard and Wandahl (2014) examine the CPDs in
Denmark and report these as been lack of resources (labour and material); connecting work;
frequent changes in work plans; external conditions and design-related issues. Table AI
provides a comprehensive list of the causes of project delays with their relevant references from
the literature. For successful project management, industry practitioners and researchers must
identify the causes of delays and take measures to reduce or control them. Thus, it is important
to analyse the current body of knowledge in this area and provide a longitudinal review of the
CPDs to improve project schedule performance.

Research method
Objectives of this study have been followed by taking a systematic review approach, as
described by Sandelowski and Barroso (2007). To this end, the qualitative findings of existing
studies are synthesised and described, and the procedure for finding related studies and their
integration is described to make the study reproducible. Elsevier’s Scopus, which encapsulates a
wide range of databases of various research areas and is widely utilised in other studies, was
selected to retrieve the studies related to the scope of this review (Hong et al., 2012).
The simplicity and accuracy of retrieving the required data are another favourable feature of
Scopus, which makes it more effective compared to other search engines (Falagas et al., 2008).

Sampling
To analyse the trends in research into the CPD, a systematic search (refer to Figure 1) was
conducted using Scopus and including all categories (i.e. title, abstract, etc.). The following
keywords, which are in line with the definition of project delay, were used to retrieve
relevant articles that examined project delay issues: “delay”, “delays”, “overrun” and
“overruns”. An initial search based on these keywords retrieved 2019 publications, which
were further limited to journal articles, articles in press, reviews (1,019) and the source title.
The search results identified journal articles limited to the construction, engineering and
management-related journals. It is worth mentioning that the search was not limited to a
particular year, as the aim was to analyse all academic journals publishing on the subject.
The abstracts and full text (if needed) of articles of interest were then reviewed; 123 articles
were found to be relevant to the objectives of this study.

Selection of relevant journal articles

Based on the final review, 26 academic journals captured 123 articles. As implied by Wing
(1997) the use of top journals in selecting published studies can set the boundary for
relevance to construction management. In fact, articles published in high-ranked journals
represent the most influential research studies. Inclusion of published studies from
lower-rank outlets is not justified, given the extra level of complexity and noise added to the
analyses (Butler and Visser, 2006). Therefore, the number of articles was revised (for quality
assurance) based on the following criteria:
• following the recommendations of Wing (1997) to consider the top journals in
construction engineering and management; and
• journals that are archived by the Web of Science (Falagas et al., 2008) by 17 April 2018.
IJMPB Search ALL (“delay” “delays” “overrun” “overruns”) (n = 2,020)

Limitation to journal AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,“ar”) OR LIMIT-TO

articles, articles in press
and review (DOCTYPE,“re”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,“ip”) n =1,020

AND (LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRC TITLE,“Journal Of Construction Engineering And Management”) OR LIMIT-TO

(EXACTSRCTITLE,“International Journal Of Project Management”) OR LIMIT-TO
(EXACTSRCTITLE,“Journal Of Management In Engineering”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE,“Engineering
Construction And Architectural Management”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE,“Construction Management
And Economics”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE,“International Journal Of Civil Engineering And
Technology”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE,“Journal Of Financial Management Of Property And
Construction”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE,“International Journal Of Construction Management”) OR
LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE,“Journal Of Civil Engineering And Management”) OR LIMIT-TO
(EXACTSRCTITLE,“Ksce Journal Of Civil Engineering”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE,“International
Journal Of Managing Projects In Business”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE,“Journal Of Construction In
Developing Countries”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE,“Journal Of Engineering Design And Technology”)
OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE,“International Journal Of Project Organisation And Management”) OR
LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE,“Built Environment Project And Asset Management”) OR LIMIT-TO
(EXACTSRCTITLE,“Canadian Journal Of Civil Engineering”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE,“Building And
Environment”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE,“Construction Economics And Building”) OR LIMIT-TO
(EXACTSRCTITLE,“Australasian Journal Of Construction Economics And Building”) OR (LIMIT-TO
(EXACTSRCTITLE,“Construction Innovation”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE,“Journal Of Facilities
Management”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE,“Proceedings Of Institution Of Civil Engineers Management
Procurement And Law”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE,“International Journal Of Construction Education
And Research”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE,“International Journal Of Productivity And Performance
Management”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE,“Arabian Journal For Science And Engineering”) OR
LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE,“Architectural Engineering And Design Management”) OR LIMIT-TO
(EXACTSRCTITLE,“EMJ Engineering Management Journal”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE,“Buildings”)
OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE,“Cogent Engineering”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE,“Facilities”) OR
LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE,“Structural Survey”) OR LIMIT-TO (EXACTSRCTITLE,“International Journal
Of Strategic Property Management”) ) (n =532)

Figure 1. Review of abstracts and full-text (n =123)

Systematic review
process Revision for quality assurance Studies included in the review (n =100)

On the basis of these criteria, 100 articles from 19 academic journals were validated for
further analysis, which are presented in Table I. Notably, three articles, which are
highlighted above, were excluded as they report a review of CPDs. Thus, the selected
articles (97) were further analysed in terms of the reported CPDs to identify common
causes. In addition, these articles were also examined according to the geographical origin
where the research had been conducted and the project types from which the outcomes
were reported.

Assessment of contributions
Following the identification of relevant articles that fit the objectives of this study, the
contributions of researchers and universities were assessed by adopting a formula
previously applied in a wide range of reviews in construction engineering and management
(Li et al., 2014; Yuan and Shen, 2011). The formula, which was initially proposed by
Journal name No. of articles
Causes of
delays on
International Journal of Project Management (IJPM) 18 construction
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management (ECAM) 16
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management ( JCEM) 13 projects
Journal of Management in Engineering ( JME) 12
Construction Management and Economics (CME) 9
Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction ( JFMPC) 6
International Journal of Construction Management (IJCM) 5
Journal of Construction in Developing Countries ( JCDC) 4
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management ( JCEM) 3
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (KJCE) 3
Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building (AJCEB) 2
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business (IJMPB) 2
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (AJSE) 1
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering (CJCE) 1
Cogent Engineering (CE) 1
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management (TEM) 1
Buildings (B) 1 Table I.
Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering ( JJCE) 1 Selected publications
Journal of Facilities Management ( JFM) 1 for the study and
Total 100 number articles

Howard et al. (1987) calculates a score for each researcher, institution and country using the
following parameters: the number of authors (n); and the author’s position in the author list
order (i). Table II presents a detailed score matrix sourced from Howard et al. (1987):

1:5ni
Score ¼ Pn ni
:
i¼1 1:5

A picture of available literature

Awareness of the trend of research and existing scientific attempts, in any field of research
facilitates access to funds, specialties and expertise, can enhance productivity in defining
future collaborators or topics, and assists investigators to reduce isolation (Hosseini et al.,
2018). These ultimately benefit scientific collaboration and boost scholarly communications
within the filed under question (Ding, 2011).

Annual publication trend of studies related to delay causes

Figure 2 presents the annual distribution of the studies reporting the CPDs. Since the first
study was reported by Arditi et al. (1985), the number of articles published in 2017 has

Order of authors
No. of authors 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. 1
2. 0.6 0.4
3. 0.47 0.32 0.21
4. 0.42 0.28 0.18 0.12
5. 0.38 0.26 0.17 0.11 0.08
6. 0.37 0.24 0.16 0.11 0.07 0.05 Table II.
Source: Howard et al. (1987) Score matrix
IJMPB 20
No. of articles
18
18
16
14
12
10
7 8 8 7 7
8 6
6 5 5
4
Figure 2. 4 2 3
2 2 2
Annual trend of 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
selected articles since 0
1985 (as of April 2018) 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00 99 98 97 96 95 94 90 85
20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19

shown a dramatic increase. Although various advanced technologies and methodologies

have been introduced, this reveals that project delays have become a problematic issue for
construction projects worldwide, and therefore researchers have addressed this issue to
enable the development of further mitigation measures to improve project performance.
Table I reveals that the top 4 journals that have published more than ten articles on the topic
are IJPM, ECAM, JCEM and JME, which account for approximately 60 per cent of the total
publications reviewed in this study. It is worth mentioning that the vast majority
(approximately 71 per cent) of these articles were published in the last decade.

Contributions of countries, institutions and researchers

The contributions of countries, institutions and researchers were determined using the scoring
matrix (see Table II) to calculate their respective scores within a single reviewed paper. For
example, the score for the study reported by Larsen et al. (2016) was calculated in the
following way: J.K. Larsen (first author), S.M. Lindhard (third author) and T.D. Brunoe (fourth
author) are all from Denmark and affiliated with Aalborg University, and so received 0.42, 0.18
and 0.12 for their authorships, respectively, while G.Q. Shen (second author) is from Hong
Kong (China) and affiliated with the Hong Kong Polythechnic University, and received 0.28.
Thus Denmark’s and Aalborg University’s score is 0.72 (0.42+0.18+0.12), while China and the
Hong Kong Polytechnic University receives a score of 0.28. Table III presents the top 10
countries contributing to the body of knowledge on the CPDs. The vast majority of the list
comprises developing countries, which reveals that project delays have been a problematic
issue in these countries. The UK and the USA recorded the second and fourth highest scores.
However, this is not due to the frequency of project delay in these countries; but rather, the
collaborations of authors from these countries in the studies conducted in developing

Country Score

1. Chinaa 9.99
2. UK 9.40
3. Malaysia 9.05
4. USA 6.26
5. Saudi Arabia 5.94
6. India 5.11
7. Jordan 4.00
8. Taiwan 4.00
Table III. 9. Nigeria 3.72
Top 10 countries of 10. Thailand 3.17
contributing papers Note: aIncludes contributions from Hong Kong
countries. It is worthwhile mentioning that the bulk of studies focussing on causes of delays in Causes of
the USA have examined the effect of whether conditions cause project delays rather than delays on
evaluating direct or indirect causative factors. construction
The institutions that have contributed most to the identification of CPDs are presented in
Table IV. These include King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (Saudi Arabia), projects
the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi (India), Dalian University of Technology (China),
the University of Hong Kong (China), Hail University (Saudi Arabia), the Asian Institute of
Technology (Thailand), Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (Ghana),
Chung Hua University (Taiwan), Universiti Putra Malaysia (Malaysia) and Kuwait
University (Kuwait); scoring 3.00, 2.90, 2.72, 2.53, 2.47, 2.20, 2.00, 2.00, 2.00 and 2.00,
respectively. It is worthwhile mentioning that the top contributing institutions are from the
developing world, in agreement with the results presented in Table III.
This study also analysed the authors’ contributions to research on the subject, and these
results are presented in Table V. Although there are 89 authors who have contributed to
research on the subject, only those who have received at least a score of 1.00 are presented. It
should be mentioned that there are a number of key contributing authors missing from this
data, as they did not receive a score of at least 1.00 due to the formula applied for the
assessment. For example, I. Mahamid has received the highest score (2.47), representing
mainly (except for one paper from an institution in Norway) Hail University (Saudi Arabia),
while the others represented institutions in China (including Hong Kong), India, Ghana,

Institution Score

1. King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals 3.00

2. Indian Institute of Technology Delhi 2.90
3. Dalian University of Technology 2.72
4. University of Hong Kong 2.53
5. Hail University 2.47
6. Asian Institute of Technology 2.20
7. Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration 2.00
8. Chung Hua University 2.00
9. Universiti Putra Malaysia 2.00 Table IV.
10. Kuwait University 2.00 Top 10 institutions

Author Score

Mahamid I. 2.47
Gunduz M. 1.54
Kumaraswamy M.M. 1.53
Al-Khalil M.I. 1.52
Iyer K.C. 1.46
Yang J.-B. 1.07
Assaf S.A. 1.07
Koushki P.A. 1.07
Sambasivan, M. 1.02
Amoatey C.T. 1.02
Bekir G.A. 1.00
Fallahnejad M.H. 1.00
Chang A.S.-T. 1.00 Table V.
Al-Momani A.H. 1.00 Authors with a score
Chan D.W.M. 1.00 of at least 1.00
IJMPB Malaysia, Canada and Taiwan. M. Gunduz received the second highest score (1.54), and
represents institutions from Turkey and Qatar, although these are not listed in top
10 countries. Hong et al. (2012) have stated that this information is valuable, as identification
of active researchers in the area is important for further collaborations in future research.

Identification of CPDs
Along with cost performance and quality, schedule performance is one of the significant
cornerstones of project success. However, there are several factors, due to various reasons
throughout the project life cycle that may cause delays. The first step towards minimising
delay in a project is to identify these causative factors, and then either eliminate or take
measures to control them. Thus, identification of the potential factors causing delays is a
prerequisite to improving project schedule performance. A number of studies across the
globe have investigated issues related to project delays, and the reasons behind them. As a
result, numerous causative factors have been identified over the last three decades, and
these are presented in Table AI. However, a review of the literature on the subject shows
that there are common causes that have been reported by the majority of researchers in
this area, and these are presented in Table VI. It is worth mentioning that the identified
CPDs may result in various types of project delays, which were presented in the
aforementioned section.
Table VI shows a significant effort has been invested across the globe to identify the
CPDs. Identification of a set of causes of delay has been acknowledged by the majority of
researchers as a valid method of improving the schedule performance of a project. While
some authors have highlighted that lessons can be learned from similar causes of delay
(Durdyev et al., 2017; Gündüz et al., 2013), some consider that they should be specific to the
project conditions or the country where the project is being undertaken (Hampton et al.,
2012; Ogunlana et al., 1996). Nevertheless, Table VI shows that the literature identifies a
number of similar causes of delay that have been repeatedly reported by various studies
since 1985, where the number of citations indicates the significance and persistence of the
respective cause. Thus, due to the word limit, only the ten most commonly cited causes will
be considered for further discussion.

Weather/climate conditions
It can be seen that “weather/climate conditions” (C1) has been identified as one of the
significant causes of delay in 74 of the studies reviewed. Depending on the project type,
weather/climate conditions, particularly unexpected and severe conditions, may cause
significant project delays, which are, however, an excusable delay as it is beyond the control
of the contractor (Nguyen et al., 2010). Examination of articles reviewed in this study shows
that the vast majority are from countries or regions (i.e. Africa, Middle East, South and East
Asia) that experience extreme weather or climate conditions, which justifies its significance
and persistence as a cause of delays. The majority of the studies identify weather or climate
as a significant cause of delay (Hussain et al., 2018; Mahamid, 2017), while some, particularly
those reporting on infrastructure projects as case studies, have examined the extent of the
delay it causes on project schedule performance (Apipattanavis et al., 2010; Ballesteros-Pérez
et al., 2015). However, apart from its direct impact, unforeseen weather conditions may also
have a subtle influence on project schedule performance that it is not easy to predict or
quantify. One such significant impact is the loss of work rhythm due to the interruption of
work (Santoso and Soeng, 2016). Unforeseen weather conditions (i.e. heavy rain) severely
affect projects involving mostly open-space activities. However, in particular regions
(i.e. South East Asia) residential projects are affected due to the frequent occurrence of
floods; for example, during the monsoon rain period (Durdyev et al., 2017), which cause
failures of basic infrastructure. Therefore, in these countries, it is commonly recommended
Label Causes of delay References

C1 Weather/climate conditions (74) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51,
52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, 93, 95, 96
C2 Poor communication, coordination and 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 56, 57, 59, 61, 63,
conflicts among stakeholders (63) 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 89, 96, 97
C3 Ineffective/improper planning (59) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35,37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 49, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 64, 65, 68,
71, 73, 75, 76, 78, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 95, 96, 97
C4 Material shortage (58) 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42, 45, 51, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 71, 73, 75, 76,
77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96
C5 Financial problems (58) 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 55, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 69, 71,
73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 85, 87, 91, 92, 95, 96
C6 Payments delay (56) 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 27, 29, 30, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69, 71,
75, 76, 79, 83, 85, 86, 87, 89, 92, 93, 95, 96
C7 Equipment/plant shortage (54) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 34, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 50, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 71, 73, 75, 76,
83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 97
C8 Lack of project stakeholders’ experience/ 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 39, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77, 78,
qualification/competence (48) 80, 83, 88, 89, 96, 97
C9 Construction labour shortage (47) 1, 2, 3, 7, 12, 15, 18, 19, 25, 27, 28, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 50, 51, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69, 71, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 85,
86, 91, 92, 96, 97
C10 Poor site management (47) 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 56, 57, 59, 60, 65, 68, 69, 71, 74, 75, 76, 82, 83, 87,
88, 89, 91, 96
Notes: 1 ¼ Hussain et al. (2018); 2 ¼ Mahamid (2017); 3 ¼ Chiu and Lai (2017); 4 ¼ Chen et al. (2017); 5 ¼ Arditi et al. (2017); 6 ¼ Kadry et al. (2017); 7 ¼ Jalal and Shoar (2017); 8 ¼ Mpofu
et al. (2017); 9 ¼ Agyekum-Mensah and Knight (2017); 10 ¼ Sambasivan et al. (2017); 11 ¼ Durdyev et al. (2017); 12 ¼ Oyegoke and Al Kiyumi (2017); 13 ¼ Vu et al. (2017); 14 ¼ Wang and
Yuan (2017); 15 ¼ El-Maaty et al. (2017); 16 ¼ Amoatey and Ankrah (2017); 17 ¼ Venkateswaran and Murugasan (2017); 18 ¼ Santoso and Soeng (2016); 19 ¼ Bagaya and Song (2016);
20 ¼ Vilventhan and Kalidindi (2016); 21 ¼ Kim et al. (2016); 22 ¼ Asiedu and Alfen (2016); 23 ¼ Larsen et al. (2016); 24 ¼ Samarghandi et al. (2016); 25 ¼ Ruqaishi and Bashir (2015);
26 ¼ Ballesteros-Pérez et al. (2015); 27 ¼ Gunduz et al. (2015); 28 ¼ McCord et al. (2015); 29 ¼ Amoatey et al. (2015); 30 ¼ Bekr (2015); 31 ¼ Wang et al. (2014); 32 ¼ Russell et al. (2014);
33 ¼ González et al. (2014); 34 ¼ Lindhard and Wandahl (2014); 35 ¼ Shehu et al. (2014); 36 ¼ Mahamid (2013); 37 ¼ Alsehaimi et al. (2013); 38 ¼ Akogbe et al. (2013); 39 ¼ Gündüz et al.
(2013); 40 ¼ Fallahnejad (2013); 41 ¼ Muya et al. (2013); 42 ¼ Ibironke et al. (2013); 43 ¼ Alinaitwe et al. (2013); 44 ¼ Anastasopoulos et al. (2012); 45 ¼ Shebob et al. (2012); 46 ¼ Doloi,
Sawhney and Iyer (2012) and Doloi, Sawhney, Iyer and Rentala (2012); 47 ¼ Mahamid et al. (2012); 48 ¼ Kazaz et al. (2012); 49 ¼ Doloi, Sawhney and Iyer (2012) and Doloi, Sawhney, Iyer and
Rentala (2012); 50 ¼ Hampton et al. (2012); 51 ¼ Mahamid (2011); 52 ¼ Bhargava et al. (2010); 53 ¼ Nguyen et al. (2010); 54 ¼ Apipattanavis et al. (2010); 55 ¼ Yang et al. (2010);
56 ¼ Khoshgoftar et al. (2010); 57 ¼ Enshassi et al. (2010); 58 ¼ Ahsan and Gunawan (2010); 59 ¼ Enshassi et al. (2009); 60 ¼ Kaliba et al. (2009); 61 ¼ Al-Kharashi and Skitmore (2009);
62 ¼ Han et al. (2009); 63 ¼ Abd El-Razek et al. (2008); 64 ¼ Sweis et al. (2008); 65 ¼ Toor and Ogunlana (2008); 66 ¼ Yang and Ou (2008); 67 ¼ Iyer et al. (2008); 68 ¼ Sambasivan and Soon
(2007); 69 ¼ Alaghbari et al. (2007); 70 ¼ Iyer and Jha (2006); 71 ¼ Faridi and El-Sayegh (2006); 72 ¼ Othman et al. (2006); 73 ¼ Aibinu and Odeyinka (2006); 74 ¼ Lo et al. (2006); 75 ¼ Assaf
and Al-Hejji (2006); 76 ¼ Abdul-Rahman et al. (2006); 77 ¼ Koushki et al. (2005); 78 ¼ Koushki and Kartam (2004); 79 ¼ Frimpong et al. (2003); 80 ¼ Chang (2002); 81 ¼ Manavazhi and
Adhikari (2002); 82 ¼ Elinwa and Joshua (2001); 83 ¼ Odeh and Battaineh (2001); 84 ¼ Al-Momani (2000); 85 ¼ Al-Khalil and Al-Ghafly (1999); 86 ¼ Abd. Majid and McCaffer (1998);
87 ¼ Mezher and Tawil (1998); 88 ¼ Kumaraswamy and Chan (1998); 89 ¼ Chan and Kumaraswamy (1998); 90 ¼ Kaming et al. (1997); 91 ¼ Ogunlana et al. (1996); 92 ¼ Assaf et al. (1995);
93 ¼ Mansfield et al. (1994); 94 ¼ Dlakwa and Culpin (1990); 95 ¼ Arditi et al. (1985); 96 ¼ Gunduz and AbuHassan (2017); 97 ¼ Zidane and Andersen (2018)
projects
delays on

the literature
The top 10 causes of
Causes of

construction

delay identified from

Table VI.
IJMPB to consider the impact of such weather conditions during the planning stage of the project.
Furthermore, contractual agreements between the project stakeholders should include any
possible delays caused by the weather conditions (Apipattanavis et al., 2010).

Communication and coordination

The construction industry is known for its fragmented structure, where various
stakeholders contribute to the completion of a facility from its inception to handover to
the client. Conflicts between the project stakeholders are associated with the information
flow throughout the project life cycle and proper coordination; therefore, these three issues,
which are the source of the internal delays, have been considered to have an additive
influence on project schedule performance (Wang and Yuan, 2017). “Poor communication,
coordination and conflicts between stakeholders” (C2) is the second most cited cause of
delay, and has been identified by 63 studies. It is worthwhile mentioning that this cause has
been identified in several studies regardless of the socio-economic status of the country
reporting the study. Project coordination should focus on sequencing and scheduling, as
well as the allocation of adequate resources for each work activity as the most efficient way
to minimise the possibilities of schedule delay. Effective communication channels between
all stakeholders with clear technical details and instructions to the site management are key
to project success. Hence, a project that is highly reliant on well-coordinated activities and
adequate communication will result in fewer disputes and less conflict between the project
stakeholders (Frimpong et al., 2003). Previous studies have recommended the use of
advanced cloud technologies to improve project coordination and communication
(Bryde et al., 2013). Building information modelling provides a digital environment for
each project stakeholder, regardless of his/her location, with clear information, and has been
proven to offer dynamic interaction at all stages of the project for better coordination,
effective communication and reduction of potential disputes (Bryde et al., 2013).

Planning
The third most common cause is “ineffective/improper planning” (C3), which was cited by
59 of the studies reviewed. Planning is the formulation of a course of action to guide a
project to completion, where an explicit operational plan needs to be established along with
milestones and consideration of possible obstacles throughout the project’s life (PMI, 2017).
Delays in any of the project milestones, depending on their severity and the floating time of
each project activity, will definitely hinder project schedule performance, which is not
excusable as the planned milestones are within the contractor’s control. Considering best
practices of planning projects based on Critical Chain Project Management is proven to be a
measure towards enhancing the quality of planning and tackling the delays associated with
ineffective planning on projects (Leach, 2004). The main reason for ineffective/improper
planning was reported to be an unrealistic or accelerated project schedule (C23) being set by
the client or due to delays in construction activities (Gunduz and AbuHassan, 2017).
The possible consequences are increased expectations of workforce performance and site
management problems due to delay in supply of the tools and materials required for the
execution of the project ( Jalal and Shoar, 2017; Mpofu et al., 2017). Moreover, increased
labour performance results in physical fatigue and poor mental attitude, which ultimately
inhibits project success in terms of quality, time and cost (Durdyev et al., 2017).

Construction materials
“Material shortage” (C4), cited by 58 of the reviewed papers, has been identified as another of
the universal CPDs. The construction process is all about transforming a conceptual
(architectural) design into a physical facility, which is impossible without the adequate
construction materials. Therefore, the availability of materials as they are needed is important Causes of
as this may cause significant project delays primarily due to disruption of labour momentum delays on
(Hughes and Thorpe, 2014). Although each of the following factors have been separately construction
identified as CPDs in various studies (refer to Table AI), these factors can also cause material
shortages on a project site: changes in design (C13); delays in material delivery/supply/ projects
manufacturing (C17); changes/increases in material prices (C31); procurement of materials
(C40); resource allocation/management (C55); political factors (C64); theft/vandalism (C105);
failure in testing (C109) and unreliable suppliers (C114). Although improvement in cash flow
management is recommended for continuous material supply (Olomolaiye, 1987), the review
results show that this may not be applicable to all projects. Projects in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and
United Arab Emirates (UAE) have experienced delays due to a shortage of materials caused
because of a sharp increase in demand, which resulted in country-wide material shortages
(Gündüz et al., 2013; Mpofu et al., 2017). It is noteworthy to mention that some studies from
developing countries (i.e. Afghanistan and Palestine) reported political issues as a cause of
material shortage (Enshassi et al., 2010; Kadry et al., 2017).

Project finance
“Financial problems” (C5) and “payment delays” (C6) have been identified as the fifth and
sixth most common CPDs, with 58 and 56 citations in the articles reviewed. Due to the
related impacts of these factors on project schedule performance, they will be discussed
together. Financial problems can be due to poor cash flow management, insufficient
financial resources and instability of financial markets, while payment delays may be due to
failure to pay within the promised period by any of the stakeholders involved in the project
life cycle (Abdul-Rahman et al., 2009). Kaming et al. (1997) reported financial insufficiency as
the most significant factor causing project delay, while Abdul-Rahman et al. (2009)
highlighted contractors’ insufficient resources as a main factor causing delays in highway
projects. Detailed examination of the papers reviewed revealed that these problems are
common to infrastructure projects that are reported to be inadequately financed and
projects delivered in developing countries, particularly large-scale ones (Oyegoke and Al
Kiyumi, 2017). Financial problems, and therefore late payments (C6), are the most frequent
CPDs in countries such as Palestine where construction projects are largely financed by aid
(Enshassi et al., 2009). It is worthwhile mentioning that these causes of delay have been
reported in projects where various procurement methods (i.e. BOT and PPP) were utilised to
finance the project (Yang et al., 2010).

Construction equipment
“Equipment/plant shortage” (C7) was cited 54 of the reviewed studies, with most of these
originating from countries with poor and/or import-based economies or those experiencing
political conflict (Enshassi et al., 2010; Kadry et al., 2017). Construction machinery helps the
workforce handle heavy work on the site (i.e. excavation and moving heavy items);
therefore, shortage of the basic equipment and plant required for the execution of the project
may result in around 5 per cent loss in working time (Zakeri et al., 1996), and has been found
to be highly correlated with financial and economic problems. These shortages are not only
due to unavailability of the required equipment or plant on the market, but also as a result of
service and maintenance issues (C113) and lack of skilled operators (C60) (Doloi, Sawhney
and Iyer, 2012; Doloi, Sawhney, Iyer and Rentala, 2012; Kazaz et al., 2012).

Experience and qualification

“Lack of stakeholder experience/qualifications/competence” (C8), which was identified in 48
of the studies reviewed, seriously affects project schedule performance (Durdyev et al. 2018).
IJMPB This is a particularly problematic issue in developing countries, due to the limited number of
institutions offering construction training (Durdyev and Ihtiyar, 2019); a decrease in
enrolments in any of the construction majors due to the perceived image of the industry and
more lucrative opportunities (Durdyev and Ihtiyar, 2019); and the unavailability and
unaffordability of skilled foreign forepersons. Therefore, the most common practice is to
tender a project to a contractor without any formal training, which makes them less effective
and creates numerous problems, hence causing significant project delays (Alwi, 2003).
Additionally, as mentioned above, political problems and civil wars are a significant reason
for the unavailability of the required competencies in construction project stakeholders
(Enshassi et al., 2010; Kadry et al., 2017).

Construction labour
Although various advanced construction technologies have been introduced, the industry is
still labour-intensive in nature (Durdyev and Ismail, 2016). Therefore, it is not surprising that
“construction labour shortage” (C9) has been cited (in 47 studies) as being among the most
common CPDs. Review of the papers where this cause was identified shows that countries
such as Qatar, the UAE and Kuwait are struggling with shortages of construction labour due
to the boom in the number of construction projects procured at the same time (Gunduz and
AbuHassan, 2017; Mpofu et al., 2017). Moreover, political conflicts have also affected the
construction industry in terms of human resources. For instance, due to the ongoing civil wars
in Palestine and Afghanistan, one of the significant obstacles in these countries is the lack of a
construction workforce for reconstruction projects, which has delayed their completion
(Enshassi et al., 2010; Kadry et al., 2017). Additionally, the workforce in developing countries
usually comes from those living in rural areas and involved in farming, which means that
construction companies in cities may have difficulty in recruiting workers (Durdyev et al.,
2017). Notably, in some countries C9 was not identified as a problematic issue; however,
“lack of skilled/qualified workforce” (C14) has been highlighted as a cause of project delays
(McCord et al., 2015) where the vast majority of the workforce is comprised by unskilled
foreign labourers (Gunduz and AbuHassan, 2017).

Site management
Although off-site planning and management is significant, the bulk of construction work is
executed on site. Therefore, management of project site activities is of strategic importance
(Durdyev and Mbachu, 2011). “Poor site management” (C10) received the tenth highest
number of citations (47) among the papers on the subject we reviewed. C10 is defined as the
inability of the contractor to plan and organise site activities (Chan and Kuwaraswamy,
1998). Better site management has been highlighted as a prerequisite for the completion of a
project within the stipulated time, and reflects the contractor’s competence in coordinating
the site activities, ensuring the flow of information between the stakeholders as well as
optimising resource allocation. The main reason for poor site management is reported as
being an inadequately qualified and competent workforce (Kumaraswamy and Chan, 1998).
Consequently, it is believed that with better site management project schedule performance
can be significantly improved without additional input.

Concluding remarks and recommendations for future studies

This paper has investigated the published literature on the CPDs and presented the
findings of a review of the selected studies in terms of publication trends, an assessment of
the contributing countries, institutions and researchers, as well as classification according
to the project type and the country of origin of the studies. The study contributes to the
field in several ways.
 The key contribution of the study is identifying a comprehensive list of causes of delays Causes of
for construction projects. This has implications for scholars as well as the world of practice. delays on
That is, scholars gain access to a comprehensive source for investigating delay causes, and construction
practitioners can consult this paper to identify various delay problems, their causes, and
hence, focus resources on the causes that are most damaging for their project. projects
As another novel finding, the review reveals that poor schedule performance in construction
projects has been a concern for both industry practitioners and researchers in this area around
the world, regardless of the socio-economic status of the country. The CPDs have received
extensive attention from researchers in this area for over three decades. Although there are
similarities in the majority of the causes that were reported, it was noted that country- and
project-specific issues result in differences in the CPDs. While the studies from the USA have
invested their effort in understanding uncontrollable causes of delay, developing countries
have identified mainly resource-related (i.e. manpower, material and money) and political
causes. Notably, around 20 of the identified CPDs impede project schedule performance in both
developed and developing countries, which is clear evidence of the need for innovative
solutions to reduce these factors. Nevertheless, the identification of the most common CPDs can
be a stepping stone for further improvements in project schedule performance. Finally, it was
also noted that the implications of advanced technologies, construction automation and off-site
manufacturing are yet to be examined and reported in the literature.
An original insight provided by the study is one of identifying the gaps within the
studied literature. Although the most common CPDs have been identified in the studies we
reviewed, several gaps have been identified in the research, which may allow further
improvements in project schedule performance. First, there are several interrelated causes
that influence another identified cause(s); therefore, investigating the influence of each cause
separately is an oversimplification of the problem, a gap in the knowledge that needs to be
filled. Future research can rely on methods like social network analysis to reveal the root
causes of major delays and also demonstrate the interrelated and reciprocal impacts of
various delay factors on other causes of delays.
The study shows that the implications of innovative and collaborative delivery methods,
such as integrated project delivery, lean construction and building information modelling
should be examined, and the influence of these methods on project schedule performance
could be evaluated. Sufficient evidence shows that these methods enhance communication
and coordination between project stakeholders, which could resolve the prevalent schedule-
related issues. Furthermore, the research findings reveal that issues related to the contractual
relationship, project culture and project delivery methods have largely been ignored by the
previous studies. Finally, it is hoped that this comprehensive review will provide a basis for
future studies to direct the efforts of researchers in the field of project schedule performance.
Another major area to be considered for further investigation is provided in light of the
limitation of the present study in terms of its objective – limited to identifying the major
causes of delays. In fact, the study intends to observe the phenomena and offers an insightful
description of what exists in the literature. With the phenomena described, the second stage
must be classification into categories, referred to as developing typologies. Therefore, a fertile
ground for suture research can be developing frameworks for categorising the delay causes
with the ultimate objective being the exploration of possible relationships between these
defined categories in formulating explanatory models of delays.

References
Abd El-Razek, M.E., Bassioni, H.A. and Mobarak, A.M. (2008), “Causes of delay in building construction
projects in Egypt”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 134 No. 11, p. 831.
Abd. Majid, M.Z. and McCaffer, R. (1998), “Factors of non-excusable delays that influence contractors’
performance”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 14 No. 3, p. 42.
IJMPB Abdul-Rahman, H., Takim, R. and Min, W.S. (2009), “Financial-related causes contributing to project
delays”, Journal of Retail & Leisure Property, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 225-238.
Abdul-Rahman, H., Berawi, M.A., Berawi, A.R., Mohamed, O., Othman, M. and Yahya, I.A. (2006),
“Delay mitigation in the Malaysian construction industry”, Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, Vol. 132 No. 2, p. 125.
Adam, A., Josephson, P.-E.B. and Lindahl, G. (2017), “Aggregation of factors causing cost overruns and
time delays in large public construction projects: trends and implications”, Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 393-406.
Agyekum-Mensah, G. and Knight, A.D. (2017), “The professionals’ perspective on the causes of project
delay in the construction industry”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management,
Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 828-841.
Ahsan, K. and Gunawan, I. (2010), “Analysis of cost and schedule performance of international
development projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 68-78.
Aibinu, A.A. and Odeyinka, H.A. (2006), “Construction delays and their causative factors in Nigeria”,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 132 No. 7, p. 667.
Akogbe, R.-K.T.M., Feng, X. and Zhou, J. (2013), “Importance and ranking evaluation of delay factors
for development construction projects in Benin”, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 17
No. 6, pp. 1213-1222.
Alaghbari, W., Kadir, M.R.A., Salim, A. and Ernawati (2007), “The significant factors causing delay of
building construction projects in Malaysia”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 192-206.
Alinaitwe, H., Apolot, R. and Tindiwensi, D. (2013), “Investigation into the causes of delays and cost
overruns in Uganda’s public sector construction projects”, Journal of Construction in Developing
Countries, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 33-47.
Al-Khalil, M.I. and Al-Ghafly, M.A. (1999), “Important causes of delay in public utility projects in Saudi
Arabia”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 647-655.
Al-Kharashi, A. and Skitmore, M. (2009), “Causes of delays in Saudi Arabian public sector construction
projects”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 3-23.
Al-Momani, A.H. (2000), “Construction delay: a quantitative analysis”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 51-59.
Alsehaimi, A., Koskela, L. and Tzortzopoulos, P. (2013), “Need for alternative research approaches in
construction management: case of delay studies”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 29
No. 4.
Alwi, S. (2003), “Factors influencing construction productivity in the Indonesian context”, Proceedings
of the 5th EASTS Conference, 29 October–1 November, Fukuoka, available at: https://eprints.qut.
edu.au/4237/
Amoatey, C.T. and Ankrah, A.N.O. (2017), “Exploring critical road project delay factors in Ghana”,
Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 110-127.
Amoatey, C.T., Ameyaw, Y.A., Adaku, E. and Famiyeh, S. (2015), “Analysing delay causes and effects
in Ghanaian state housing construction projects”, International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 198-214.
Anastasopoulos, P.C., Labi, S., Bhargava, A. and Mannering, F.L. (2012), “Empirical assessment of the
likelihood and duration of highway project time delays”, Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, Vol. 138 No. 3.
Ansah, R.H. and Sorooshian, S. (2018), “4P delays in project management”, Engineering, Construction
and Architectural Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 62-76.
Apipattanavis, S., Sabol, K., Molenaar, K.R., Rajagopalan, B., Xi, Y., Blackard, B. and Patil, S. (2010),
“Integrated framework for quantifying and predicting weather-related highway construction
delays”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 136 No. 11.
Arditi, D., Akan, G.T. and Gurdamar, S. (1985), “Reasons for delays in public projects in Turkey”, Causes of
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 171-181. delays on
Arditi, D., Nayak, S. and Damci, A. (2017), “Effect of organizational culture on delay in construction”, construction
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 136-147.
projects
Asiedu, R.O. and Alfen, H.W. (2016), “Understanding the underlying reasons behind time overruns
of government building projects in Ghana”, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 20 No. 6,
pp. 2103-2111.
Assaf, S.A. and Al-Hejji, S. (2006), “Causes of delay in large construction projects”, International Journal
of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 349-357.
Assaf, S.A., Al-Khalil, M. and Al-Hazmi, M. (1995), “Causes of delay in large building construction
projects”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 2, p. 45.
Bagaya, O. and Song, J. (2016), “Empirical study of factors influencing schedule delays of public
construction projects in Burkina Faso”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 32 No. 5.
Ballesteros-Pérez, P., Del Campo-Hitschfeld, M.L., González-Naranjo, M.A. and González-Cruz, M.C.
(2015), “Climate and construction delays: case study in Chile”, Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 596-621.
Bekr, G.A. (2015), “Causes of delay in public construction projects in Iraq”, Jordan Journal of Civil
Engineering, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 149-162.
Bhargava, A., Anastasopoulos, P.C., Labi, S., Sinha, K.C. and Mannering, F.L. (2010), “Three-stage
least-squares analysis of time and cost overruns in construction contracts”, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 136 No. 11.
Bryde, D., Broquetas, M. and Volm, J.M. (2013), “The project benefits of building information modelling
(BIM)”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 971-980.
Butler, L. and Visser, M.S. (2006), “Extending citation analysis to non-source items”, Scientometrics,
Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 327-343.
Chan, D.W.M. and Kumaraswamy, M.M. (1997), “A comparative study of causes of time overruns in
Hong Kong construction projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 55-63.
Chang, A.S.-T. (2002), “Reasons for cost and schedule increase for engineering design projects”, Journal
of Management in Engineering, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 29-36.
Chen, G.-X., Shan, M., Chan, A.P.C., Liu, X. and Zhao, Y.-Q. (2017), “Investigating the causes of delay in
grain bin construction projects: the case of China”, International Journal of Construction
Management, (in press).
Chiu, B.W.Y. and Lai, J.H.K. (2017), “Project delay: key electrical construction factors in Hong Kong”,
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 847-857.
Ding, Y. (2011), “Scientific collaboration and endorsement: network analysis of co-authorship and
citation networks”, Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 187-203.
Dlakwa, M.M. and Culpin, F.M. (1990), “Reasons for overrun in public sector construction projects in
Nigeria”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 237-241.
Doloi, H., Sawhney, A. and Iyer, K.C. (2012), “Structural equation model for investigating factors
affecting delay in Indian construction projects”, Construction Management and Economics,
Vol. 30 No. 10, pp. 869-884.
Doloi, H., Sawhney, A., Iyer, K.C. and Rentala, S. (2012), “Analysing factors affecting delays in Indian
construction projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 30, pp. 479-489.
Durdyev, S. and Ihtiyar, A. (2019), “Structural equation model of factors influencing students to major
in architecture, engineering, and construction”, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering
Education and Practice, Vol. 145 No. 2.
Durdyev, S. and Ismail, S. (2016), “On-site construction productivity in Malaysian infrastructure
projects”, Structural Survey, Vol. 34 Nos 4-5, pp. 446-462.
IJMPB Durdyev, S. and Mbachu, J. (2011), “On-site labor productivity of New Zealand construction industry:
key constraints and improvement measures”, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics
and Building, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 18-33.
Durdyev, S., Omarov, M. and Ismail, S. (2017), “Causes of delay in residential construction projects in
Cambodia”, Cogent Engineering, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Eizakshiri, F., Chan, P.W. and Emsley, M.W. (2015), “Where is intentionality in studying project
delays?”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 349-367.
Elinwa, A.U. and Joshua, M. (2001), “Time-overrun factors in Nigerian construction industry”, Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 127 No. 5, p. 419.
El-Maaty, A.E.A., El-Kholy, A.M. and Akal, A.Y. (2017), “Modeling schedule overrun and cost
escalation percentages of highway projects using fuzzy approach”, Engineering, Construction
and Architectural Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 809-827.
Enshassi, A., Al-Najjar, J. and Kumaraswamy, M. (2009), “Delays and cost overruns in the construction
projects in the Gaza Strip”, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 126-151.
Enshassi, A., Kumaraswamy, M. and Jomah, A.-N. (2010), “Significant factors causing time and cost
overruns in construction projects in the Gaza Strip: contractors’ perspective”, International
Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 35-60.
Falagas, M.E., Pitsouni, E.I., Malietzis, G.A. and Pappas, G. (2008), “Comparison of PubMed, Scopus,
Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strength and weaknesses”, The FASEB Journal, Vol. 22
No. 2, pp. 338-342.
Fallahnejad, M.H. (2013), “Delay causes in Iran gas pipeline projects”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 136-146.
Faridi, A.S. and El-Sayegh, S.M. (2006), “Significant factors causing delay in the UAE construction
industry”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 24 No. 11, pp. 1167-1176.
Frimpong, Y., Oluwoye, J. and Crawford, L. (2003), “Causes of delay and cost overruns in construction
of groundwater projects in a developing countries; Ghana as a case study”, International Journal
of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 321-326.
González, P., González, V., Molenaar, K. and Orozco, F. (2014), “Analysis of causes of delay and time
performance in construction projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 140 No. 1.
Gunduz, M. and AbuHassan, M.H.A. (2017), “Mapping the industrial perception of delay data through
importance rating”, Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Vol. 42 No. 9, pp. 3799-3808.
Gündüz, M., Nielsen, Y. and Ozdemir, M. (2013), “Quantification of delay factors using the relative
importance index method for construction projects in Turkey”, Journal of Management in
Engineering, Vol. 29 No. 2.
Gunduz, M., Nielsen, Y. and Ozdemir, M. (2015), “Fuzzy assessment model to estimate the probability of
delay in Turkish construction projects”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 31 No. 4.
Hampton, G., Baldwin, A.N. and Holt, G. (2012), “Project delays and cost: stakeholder perceptions of
traditional v. PPP procurement”, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 73-91.
Hong, Y., Chan, D.W.M., Chan, A.P.C. and Yeung, J.F.Y. (2012), “Critical analysis of partnering research
trend in construction journals”, Journal of Construction Management and Engineering, Vol. 28
No. 2, pp. 82-95.
Hosseini, M.R., Chileshe, N., Zou, J. and Baroudi, B. (2013), “Approaches of implementing ICT
technologies within the construction industry”, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics
and Building – Conference Series, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 1-12.
Hosseini, M.R., Maghrebi, M., Akbarnezhad, A., Martek, I. and Arashpour, M. (2018), “Analysis of
citation networks in building information modeling research”, Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 144 No. 8.
Howard, G.S., Cole, D.A. and Scot, M.E. (1987), “Research productivity in psychology based on Causes of
publication in the journals of the American Psychological Association”, American Psychologist, delays on
Vol. 42 No. 11, pp. 975-986.
construction
Hughes, R. and Thorpe, D. (2014), “A review of enabling factors in construction industry productivity
in an Australian environment”, Construction Innovation, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 210-228. projects
Hussain, S., Zhu, F., Ali, Z., Aslam, H.D. and Hussain, A. (2018), “Critical delaying factors: public sector
building projects in Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan”, Buildings, Vol. 8 No. 1, p. 6.
Ibironke, O.T., Oladinrin, T.O., Adeniyi, O. and Eboreime, I.V. (2013), “Analysis of non-excusable delay
factors influencing contractors’ performance in Lagos State, Nigeria”, Journal of Construction in
Developing Countries, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 53-72.
Iyer, K.C. and Jha, K.N. (2006), “Critical factors affecting schedule performance: evidence from
Indian construction projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 132
No. 8, p. 871.
Iyer, K.C., Chaphalkar, N.B. and Joshi, G.A. (2008), “Understanding time delay disputes in construction
contracts”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 174-184.
Jalal, M.P. and Shoar, S.A. (2017), “A hybrid SD-DEMATEL approach to develop a delay model for
construction projects”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 629-651.
Kadry, M., Osman, H. and Georgy, M. (2017), “Causes of construction delays in countries with high
geopolitical risks”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 143 No. 2.
Kaliba, C., Muya, M. and Mumba, K. (2009), “Cost escalation and schedule delays in road construction
projects in Zambia”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 522-531.
Kaming, P.F., Olomolaiye, P.O., Holt, G.D. and Harris, F.C. (1997), “Factors influencing construction
time and cost overruns on high-rise projects in Indonesia”, Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 83-94.
Kazaz, A., Ulubeyli, S. and Tuncbilekli, N.A. (2012), “Causes of delays in construction projects in
Turkey”, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 426-435.
Khoshgoftar, M., Bakar, A.H.A. and Osman, O. (2010), “Causes of delays in Iranian construction
projects”, International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 53-69.
Kim, S.-Y., Tuan, K.N. and Luu, V.T. (2016), “Delay factor analysis for hospital projects in Vietnam”,
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 519-529.
Koushki, P.A. and Kartam, N. (2004), “Impact of construction materials on project time and cost in
Kuwait”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 126-132.
Koushki, P.A., Al-Rashid, K. and Kartam, N. (2005), “Delays and cost increases in the construction of
private residential projects in Kuwait”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 285-294.
Kumaraswamy, M.M. and Chan, D.W.M. (1998), “Contributors to construction delays”, Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 17-29.
Larsen, J.K., Shen, G.Q., Lindhard, Sø., M. and Brunoe, T.D. (2016), “Factors affecting schedule delay,
cost overrun, and quality level in public construction projects”, Journal of Management in
Engineering, Vol. 32 No. 1.
Leach, L.P. (2004), Critical Chain Project Management, 2nd ed., Artech House, Boston, MA.
Lepage, M. (2017), “Types of schedule delays in construction projects”, available at: www.
planacademy.com/types-of-schedule-delays-in-construction/ (accessed 2 November 2018).
Lessing, B., Thurnell, D. and Durdyev, S. (2017), “Main factors causing delays in large construction
projects: evidence from New Zealand”, Journal of Management, Economics, and Industrial
Organization, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 63-82.
Li, Z., Shen, G.Q. and Xue, X. (2014), “Critical review of the research on the management of
prefabricated construction”, Habitat International, Vol. 43, pp. 240-249.
IJMPB Lindhard, S. and Wandahl, S. (2014), “Exploration of the reasons for delays in construction”,
International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 36-44.
Lo, T.Y., Fung, I.W.H. and Tung, K.C.F. (2006), “Construction delays in Hong Kong civil engineering
projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 132 No. 6, p. 636.
McCord, J., McCord, M., Davis, P.T., Haran, M. and Rodgers, W.J. (2015), “Understanding delays in
housing construction: evidence from Northern Ireland”, Journal of Financial Management of
Property and Construction, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 286-319.
Mahamid, I. (2011), “Risk matrix for factors affecting time delay in road construction projects:
owners’ perspective”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 18 No. 6,
pp. 609-617.
Mahamid, I. (2013), “Common risks affecting time overrun in road construction projects in Palestine:
contractors’ perspective”, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building, Vol. 13
No. 2, pp. 45-53.
Mahamid, I. (2017), “Analysis of schedule deviations in road construction projects and the effects of
project physical characteristics”, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction,
Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 192-210.
Mahamid, I., Bruland, A. and Dmaidi, N. (2012), “Causes of delay in road construction projects”, Journal
of Management in Engineering, Vol. 28 No. 3.
Manavazhi, M.R. and Adhikari, D.K. (2002), “Material and equipment procurement delays in highway
projects in Nepal”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 627-632.
Mansfield, N., Ugwu, O. and Doran, T. (1994), “Causes of delay and cost overruns in Nigerian
construction projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 254-260.
Mezher, T.M. and Tawil, W. (1998), “Causes of delays in the construction industry in Lebanon”,
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 252-260.
Mpofu, B., Ochieng, E.G., Moobela, C. and Pretorius, A. (2017), “Profiling causative factors leading to
construction project delays in the United Arab Emirates”, Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 346-376.
Muya, M., Kaliba, C., Sichombo, B. and Shakantu, W. (2013), “Cost escalation, schedule overruns and
quality shortfalls on construction projects: the case of Zambia”, International Journal of
Construction Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 53-68.
Nguyen, L.D., Kneppers, J., García De Soto, B. and Ibbs, W. (2010), “Analysis of adverse weather for
excusable delays”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 136 No. 12.
Ogunlana, S.O., Promkuntong, K. and Jearkjirm, V. (1996), “Construction delays in a fast-growing
economy: comparing Thailand with other economies”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 37-45.
Olomolaiye, P. (1987), “Problems influencing craftsmen’s productivity in Nigeria”, Building and
Environment, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 317-323.
Othman, A.A., Torrance, J.V. and Hamid, M.A. (2006), “Factors influencing the construction time of civil
engineering projects in Malaysia”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management,
Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 481-501.
Oyegoke, A.S. and Al Kiyumi, N. (2017), “The causes, impacts and mitigations of delay in megaprojects
in the Sultanate of Oman”, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction,
Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 286-302.
PMI (2017), PMBOK Guide, 6th ed., Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.
Ramanathan, C., Narayanan, S.P. and Idrus, A.B. (2012), “Construction delays causing risks on time
and cost – a critical review”, Australasian Journal of Construction Economics and Building,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 37-57.
Ruqaishi, M. and Bashir, H.A. (2015), “Causes of delay in construction projects in the oil and gas
industry in the gulf cooperation council countries: a case study”, Journal of Management in
Engineering, Vol. 31 No. 3.
Russell, M.M., Hsiang, S.M., Liu, M. and Wambeke, B. (2014), “Causes of time buffer and duration Causes of
variation in construction project tasks: comparison of perception to reality”, Journal of delays on
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 140 No. 6.
construction
Samarghandi, H., Tabatabaei, S.M.M., Taabayan, P., Hashemi, A.M. and Willoughby, K. (2016),
“Studying the reasons for delay and cost overrun in construction projects: the case of Iran”, projects
Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 51-84.
Sambasivan, M. and Soon, Y.W. (2007), “Causes and effects of delays in Malaysian
construction industry”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25 No. 5,
pp. 517-526.
Sambasivan, M., Deepak, T.J., Salim, A.N. and Ponniah, V. (2017), “Analysis of delays in
Tanzanian construction industry: transaction cost economics (TCE) and structural equation
modeling (SEM) approach”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 24
No. 2, pp. 308-325.
Sandelowski, M. and Barroso, J. (2007), Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative Research, Springer
Publishing, New York, NY.
Santoso, D.S. and Soeng, S. (2016), “Analyzing delays of road construction projects in Cambodia: causes
and effects”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 32 No. 6.
Shebob, A., Dawood, N., Shah, R.K. and Xu, Q. (2012), “Comparative study of delay factors in Libyan
and the UK construction industry”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management,
Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 688-712.
Shehu, Z., Endut, I.R. and Akintoye, A. (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 No. 1, pp. 55-75.
Sweis, G., Sweis, R., Abu Hammad, A. and Shboul, A. (2008), “Delays in construction projects: the case
of Jordan”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 665-674.
Toor, S.-U.-R. and Ogunlana, S. (2008), “Problems causing delays in major construction projects in
Thailand”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 395-408.
Tsai, C. and Wen, M.L. (2005), “Research and trends in science education from 1998 to 2002: a content
analysis of publication in selected journals”, International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 27
No. 1, pp. 3-14.
Venkateswaran, C.B. and Murugasan, R. (2017), “Time delay and cost overrun of road over bridge
(ROB) construction projects in India”, Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. 79-96.
Vilventhan, A. and Kalidindi, S.N. (2016), “Interrelationships of factors causing delays in the relocation
of utilities: a cognitive mapping approach”, Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 349-368.
Vu, H.A., Cu, V.H., Min, L.X. and Wang, J.Q. (2017), “Risk analysis of schedule delays in international
highway projects in Vietnam using a structural equation model”, Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 1018-1039.
Wang, J. and Yuan, H. (2017), “System dynamics approach for investigating the risk effects
on schedule delay in infrastructure projects”, Journal of Management in Engineering,
Vol. 33 No. 1.
Wang, W.-C., Lin, C.-L., Wang, S.-H., Liu, J.-J. and Lee, M.-T. (2014), “Application of importance-
satisfaction analysis and influence-relations map to evaluate design delay factors”, Journal of
Civil Engineering and Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 497-510.
Wing, C.K. (1997), “The ranking of construction management journals”, Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 387-398.
Yang, J.-B. and Ou, S.-F. (2008), “Using structural equation modeling to analyze relationships
among key causes of delay in construction”, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 35 No. 4,
pp. 321-332.
IJMPB Yang, J.-B., Yang, C.-C. and Kao, C.-K. (2010), “Evaluating schedule delay causes for private
participating public construction works under the build-operate-transfer model”, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 569-579.
Yuan, H. and Shen, L. (2011), “Trend of the research on construction and demolition waste
management”, Waste Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 670-679.
Zack, J.G. (2003), “Schedule delay analysis; is there agreement?”, Proceedings of PMI-CPM Spring
Conference, College of Performance Management, Project Management Institute, 7–9 May,
New Orleans, LA.
Zakeri, M., Olomolaiye, P.O., Holt, G.D. and Harris, F.C. (1996), “A survey of constraints on Iranian
construction operatives’ productivity”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 14 No. 5,
pp. 417-426.
Zidane, Y.J.T. and Andersen, B. (2018), “The top 10 universal delay factors in construction projects”,
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 650-672.

Further reading
Odeh, A.M. and Battaineh, H.T. (2002), “Causes of construction delay: traditional contracts”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 67-73.

Corresponding author
Serdar Durdyev can be contacted at: durdyevs@ara.ac.nz
Causes of delay
Weather/climate conditions
Poor communication, coordination and 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 56,
conflicts among stakeholders
Ineffective/improper planning
Material shortage
Financial problems
Payments delay
Equipment/plant shortage
Lack of stakeholder’s experience/
qualification/competence
Labour shortage
Poor site management
Delay due to late decision making
Delay due to sub-contractor change
(problems, low performance)
Changes in design
Lack of skilled/qualified workforce 1, 3, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 20, 24, 27, 28, 30, 32, 35, 38, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 51, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 69, 71, 74, 75, 76. 79, 85, 86, 88, 90, 91,
Laws and regulations
Low productivity (i.e. labour and
equipment)
Delay in material delivery/supply/
manufacturing
List of the identified
Table AI.
causes of project delay
References
1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48,
49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, 93, 95, 96 Appendix
57, 59, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 89, 96, 97
1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35,37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 49, 55, 56, 57, 59,
61, 64, 65, 68, 71, 73, 75, 76, 78, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 95, 96, 97
1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42, 45, 51, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69,
71, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96
1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 55, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64,
65, 66, 69, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 85, 87, 91, 92, 95, 96
1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 27, 29, 30, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64,
65, 68, 69, 71, 75, 76, 79, 83, 85, 86, 87, 89, 92, 93, 95, 96
1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 34, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 50, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 71,
73, 75, 76, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 97
1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 39, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72,
74, 75, 77, 78, 80, 83, 88, 89, 96, 97
1, 2, 3, 7, 12, 15, 18, 19, 25, 27, 28, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 50, 51, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69, 71, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78,
79, 82, 83, 85, 86, 91, 92, 96, 97
3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 56, 57, 59, 60, 65, 68, 69, 71, 74, 75,
76, 82, 83, 87, 88, 89, 91, 96
1, 3, 8, 10, 12, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 35, 36, 38, 39, 42, 47, 49, 50, 51, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 75, 79,
83, 85, 87, 88, 89, 91, 96, 97
4, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45, 46, 49, 50, 56, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 68, 69, 71, 74, 75, 76, 82,
83, 86, 87, 88, 89, 93, 96
1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 18, 21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 50, 51, 55, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65, 71, 73, 76, 78, 80, 83, 87, 88,
89, 90, 92, 93, 97
92, 95, 96
1, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 18, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 38, 39, 40, 42, 45, 49, 50, 55, 56, 57, 59, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 73, 75, 80, 81, 82, 85, 87,
92, 96, 97
1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 56, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 68, 69, 71, 75, 83, 87,
90, 92, 96
1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 35, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 57, 59, 61, 63, 64, 66, 69, 71, 73, 75, 79, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86,
87, 92, 96
(continued )
projects
delays on
Causes of
construction
 IJMPB

Table AI.
Causes of delay References

Construction method 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42, 45, 47, 48, 49, 51, 56, 57, 59, 65, 66, 68, 71, 75, 76, 82, 83, 85, 86,
87, 93, 96
Delays in approvals (material, drawing, 1, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 25, 27, 28, 30, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 45, 46, 47, 49, 51, 56, 57, 59, 61, 63, 69, 71, 75, 76, 79, 83, 85, 91, 92, 93, 96,
work and design) 97
Delay due to permit and approval issues 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 24, 27, 28, 30, 32, 35, 38, 39, 40, 47, 49, 50, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 71, 73, 74, 75, 82, 85, 87, 91, 92, 95, 96
Inadequate/delay in inspection 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 35, 36, 39, 42, 47, 49, 51, 56, 57, 59, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 69, 73, 75, 76, 79, 83, 86, 91, 93, 95, 96
(site and test)
Change orders 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 18, 19, 22, 24, 27, 28, 30, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45, 47, 55, 56, 61, 64, 65, 66, 68, 71, 75, 77, 83, 84, 85, 91, 95, 97
Contract duration is too short or 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 25, 27, 28, 30, 35, 36, 39, 40, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 56, 57, 59, 61, 68, 71, 74, 75, 80, 82, 83, 85, 95, 96
unrealistic
Ground/terrain conditions/subsurface 1, 2, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 35, 36, 38, 39, 42, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 63, 65, 71, 74, 75, 79, 83, 85, 88, 89, 92, 96
Project site (location, access and 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 20, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, 32, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 43, 48, 49, 50, 51, 57, 65, 66, 70, 72, 86, 87, 90, 96
facilities)
Material type and technical 1, 7, 14, 15, 18, 21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 31, 32, 35, 39, 40, 45, 47, 48, 57, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 69, 71, 76, 82, 85, 87, 92, 95, 96
specifications
Design (document) problems causing 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 32, 36, 39, 40, 42, 47, 49, 50, 51, 57, 59, 63, 65, 71, 73, 75, 76, 84, 85, 87, 92, 96, 97
delay (mistakes, incomplete and
inappropriate)
Site conditions (i.e. access, storage, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 28, 29, 30, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 56, 57, 59, 65, 66, 68, 69, 74, 75, 84, 85, 87, 91, 93, 97
obstructions, traffic and security)
Suspension of work (interruptions and 7, 8, 10, 14, 16, 19, 27, 28, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 47, 51, 53, 56, 57, 59, 61, 64, 66, 67, 68, 75, 76, 83, 85, 86, 96, 97
stakeholder interference)
Rework (due to various reasons) 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 39, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 57, 59, 62, 67, 75, 96
Material price change/escalation 1, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 27, 28, 29, 30, 35, 38, 39, 42, 45, 48, 49, 55, 57, 59, 61, 64, 73, 79, 85, 87, 91, 96
Changes in/unclear project scope 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, 17, 25, 27, 30, 32, 35, 36, 39, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 51, 55, 58, 61, 65, 74, 75, 85, 96
Material damages/equipment 8, 11, 14, 18, 21, 23, 27, 28, 30, 32, 35, 39, 42, 50, 56, 57, 59, 61, 64, 68, 71, 73, 75, 79, 85, 86, 87, 92, 96
breakdown
Delay due to site preparation, site 1, 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 24, 27, 28, 30, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42, 47, 49, 56, 58, 66, 67, 75, 76, 85, 96
clearance, handing over
Economic factors/problems/conditions 8, 13, 14, 21, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 36, 39, 41, 42, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 57, 58, 59, 60, 65, 66, 70, 84, 96
Poor/ineffective/lack of quality control 8, 10, 12, 14, 19, 23, 25, 29, 32, 35, 45, 48, 56, 57, 59, 63, 64, 65, 68, 71, 83, 85, 87, 97
Unforeseen events (Act of God) 1, 6, 8, 9, 18, 22, 27, 28, 34, 36, 39, 42, 47, 51, 55, 58, 65, 66, 71, 73, 95, 96
Bureaucracy 8, 13, 14, 17, 35, 36, 40, 43, 48, 49, 51, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 71, 85, 87, 92, 97
Contract disputes and negotiations 4, 7, 10, 13, 14, 17, 25, 30, 40, 48, 50, 55, 56, 57, 59, 61, 69, 83, 87, 93, 95
Procurement of materials 1, 6, 8, 9, 27, 28, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 46, 50, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 75, 79, 91

(continued )
Causes of delay
Mistakes/errors during construction
Drawing problems (delay and mistakes)
Material quality
Delay/lack of information (contract,
design and project)
Misunderstanding/unrealistic/poor client
requirements
Complexity of project
Poor/unsuitable management/
leadership
Ineffective delay penalties/incentives
Problems with neighbours
Accidents and injuries
Extra work/large quantities
Poor contract management
Cash flow
Organisational structure
Resource allocation/management
Estimation (cost)
Delay in/late design or design
documents
Strikes
Delay in mobilisation (site and
equipment)
Unskilled equipment operators
Equipment efficiency
Award project to the lowest bid price
Workforce relationship (personal
conflicts and manager-labour relation)
Political factors
Deficient contract
Poor documentation and lack of written
procedures
Absenteeism
Supervision
Table AI.
References
7, 10, 14, 17, 21, 23, 38, 40, 48, 56, 57, 59, 60, 69, 71, 79, 82, 83, 87, 93, 97
1, 4, 7, 13, 15, 16, 18, 24, 27, 28, 30, 32, 35, 39, 45, 57, 59, 64, 75, 91
19, 24, 27, 28, 30, 35, 39, 40, 42, 56, 57, 59, 66, 68, 73, 74, 83, 91, 97
1, 6, 7, 9, 12, 17, 20, 21, 29, 31, 55, 57, 59, 61, 66, 73, 74, 75, 85, 88
1, 8, 12, 21, 23, 27, 28, 29, 31, 39, 42, 50, 55, 56, 57, 59, 65, 74, 75, 97
1, 8, 9, 11, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 32, 39, 43, 57, 59, 65, 66, 72, 75, 89
7, 9, 10, 14, 17, 21, 27, 28, 31, 38, 42, 48, 51, 70, 71 85, 87, 88, 89, 97
4, 8, 12, 18, 26, 27, 28, 34, 35, 39, 40, 50, 55, 61, 75, 82, 85, 87
10, 25, 27, 28, 30, 39, 42, 55, 56, 57, 59, 63, 66, 68, 73, 83, 91
8, 13, 18, 21, 27, 28, 29, 38, 39, 40, 48, 63, 66, 67, 75, 87, 96
2, 15, 18, 22, 30, 38, 43, 45, 48, 49, 55, 61, 66, 67, 82, 84, 95, 97
8, 19, 35, 38, 40, 49, 56, 57, 59, 63, 65, 69, 76, 79, 83, 93
3, 6, 25, 30, 35, 40, 48, 50, 55, 57, 59, 73, 79, 85, 87, 92
5, 10, 25, 28, 49, 56, 57, 59, 61, 68, 81, 83, 88, 89, 91, 95, 97
13, 15, 16, 27, 28, 31, 36, 47, 51, 57, 59, 65, 71, 88, 89, 91
7, 8, 12, 18, 24, 31, 42, 46, 48, 57, 59, 63, 72, 74, 79, 87
2, 4, 6, 15, 23, 27, 36, 49, 50, 51, 57, 59, 66, 89, 95
6, 20, 27, 29, 39, 40, 42, 43, 57, 59, 60, 66, 73, 86
1, 6, 8, 12, 16, 18, 27, 30, 35, 39, 42, 64, 73, 75, 85
1, 11, 15, 18, 47, 49, 57, 59, 61, 63, 64, 73, 75, 92
13, 14, 25, 27, 36, 39, 46, 47, 49, 57, 59, 87, 90
1, 8, 12, 17, 18, 19, 24, 30, 35, 47, 55, 74, 75, 79
7, 8, 11, 13, 27, 28, 39, 47, 48, 61, 74, 75, 82, 93
2, 18, 22, 23, 36, 43, 47, 49, 50, 51, 55, 57, 59, 97
10, 22, 24, 25, 29, 30, 57, 59, 65, 66, 76, 86
6, 22, 30, 36, 40, 51, 55, 57, 59, 69, 74, 76
8, 11, 27, 30, 32, 39, 42, 57, 59, 65, 69, 86, 97
11, 13, 21, 24, 31, 32, 35, 38, 41, 60, 72, 73
(continued )
projects
delays on
Causes of
construction

Table AI.
Causes of delay
Social factors
Mistakes in contract
Type of contract
Health and Safety issues
Feasibility
Slow response
Poor monitoring and control
Bid related delays (process, type and
method)
Low/lack of motivation
Inflexibility of a stakeholder
Slow information flow
Legal disputes
Delay due to the cost-related factors
(rental fees and project cost)
Delay in submissions
Lack of managerial and supervisory
skills
Staff/labour turnover
Poor quality of work
Lack of commitment contract/project
and its conditions
Obsolete technology
Lack of utilities on site
Insufficient data collection before
design
Contract modification
Corruption/frauds
Project size
Delays due to claim issues
Lack of cooperation
Lack of IT use
Delay in commencement/late contract
award
Geological problems
IJMPB
References
11, 13, 25, 32, 50, 61, 75, 85, 87, 92, 95
8, 19, 40, 43, 55, 56, 57, 59, 69, 83, 93
8, 28, 35, 40, 43, 52, 57, 59, 61, 75, 87
7, 9, 14, 32, 34, 35, 45, 62, 64, 85, 96
1, 7, 13, 24, 27, 39, 42, 45, 48, 64, 65
20, 32, 35, 57, 59, 64, 65, 74, 85, 91, 97
24, 35, 43, 45, 61, 64, 71, 79, 85, 86, 97
13, 17, 24, 36, 40, 51, 61, 65, 72, 96
7, 22, 27, 28, 39, 42, 45, 46, 86
8, 15, 18, 47, 49, 57, 59, 61, 75
7, 8, 30, 57, 59, 73, 79, 88, 89
1, 8, 11, 19, 27, 39, 61, 75, 87
8, 17, 22, 24, 43, 55, 65, 72
6, 18, 35, 36, 45, 64, 74, 85
14, 41, 57, 59, 71, 88, 89
7, 32, 40, 57, 58, 59, 61
8, 61, 69, 71, 74, 75, 76
22, 29, 57, 59, 65, 82
27, 29, 39, 42, 65, 75, 97
11, 27, 30, 75, 95, 96
21, 23, 27, 28, 35, 39
8, 30, 57, 59, 60, 71
6, 22, 57, 59, 61, 65
2, 11, 35, 48, 52, 72
1, 14, 17, 35, 64, 85
20, 25, 65, 71, 85
14, 27, 28, 39, 65
36, 38, 47, 51, 66
13, 14, 48, 87, 92
(continued )
Causes of delay References

Lack of training 7, 57, 59, 87, 92

Environmental factors 7, 14, 40, 74, 87
War/political conflicts 6, 27, 39, 42, 66
Late approval/evaluation of completed 1, 19, 38, 49, 55, 97
work
Workforce overtime 7, 8, 57, 59, 65
Disturbance to public activities 18, 36, 51, 96
Buildability 9, 13, 65, 74
Theft/vandalism 6, 29, 40, 50
Unethical behaviour 9, 17, 57, 59
Ineffective risk management 7, 9, 65, 74
Shortage of supporting and shoring 35, 45, 85
installations for excavations
Failure in testing 57, 59, 76
Lack of protection of completed work 57, 59, 76
No urgency to complete the project 57, 59, 76
Monopoly 36, 47, 51
Maintenance work 48, 59, 82
Unreliable suppliers 27, 39, 42
Litigation 20, 29, 82
Delay in field survey 35, 45, 85
Payment method 1, 8, 17
Ageing of site workers 57, 59
Contract competition 57, 59
Use of unemployment programmes in 57, 59
projects
Nationality of labour 61, 75
Equipment allocation 42, 95
Definition 27, 61
Slow site clearance 27, 39
Lack of testing facilities 6, 40
Delay in certification 8, 18
Commercial pressure 35
Variation orders 29
Security 30

(continued )
projects
delays on
Causes of

construction

Table AI.
 IJMPB

Table AI.
Causes of delay References

Holiday days 30
Late issuance of instructions 73
Location of utilities 20
Lack of land for relocation 20
Delays or long process times by other 23
authorities
Selection and assignment criteria 23
Complications in the tendering process 25
Low repetition 32
Lack instruction work method 32
Crew size 32
Not familiar with the condition of 35
contract
Physical obstacles 62
Tender type – three types of tender, i.e. 72
open tender, open to bumiputra only
(native Malay contractors) or selective
tender
Size of contractor (Class a, Class b, Class 72
c and Classes d and e)
Joint ownership 18
Project profitability 7
Customs clearance 6
Infrastructure construction investment 13
changes
Land expropriation compensation 13
changes
Unreasonable adjustment of price by 17
contractors

(continued )
View publication stats
Causes of delay References

BOT-specific causes (55) Model selection for PPP, shortage of professional service fee, selection of professional consultant, lack of determination of entitled
government, announcement content change, low enthusiasm of private investment, improper announcement content, low self-
liquidating ratio, rigid investment content, no investment consultant, short tendering period, evaluation and selection committee
change, hard to define objective evaluation rule, project debt collateral, mechanism for forced transfer, role conflict in negotiation,
urban plan change, dispute on operation duration, dispute on land usage, trivial administrative procedures, uncompleted client-
finished items, late site liberation by client, construction schedule delay, no takeover entity, incompletion of property transfer,
unclear definition of compensable and non-compensable project items, indefinite property list, incomplete refunded project loan
Notes: 1 ¼ Hussain et al. (2018); 2 ¼ Mahamid (2017); 3 ¼ Chiu and Lai (2017); 4 ¼ Chen et al. (2017); 5 ¼ Arditi et al. (2017); 6 ¼ Kadry et al. (2017); 7 ¼ Jalal and Shoar
(2017); 8 ¼ Mpofu et al. (2017); 9 ¼ Agyekum-Mensah and Knight (2017); 10 ¼ Sambasivan et al. (2017); 11 ¼ Durdyev et al. (2017); 12 ¼ Oyegoke and Al Kiyumi (2017);
13 ¼ Vu et al. (2017); 14 ¼ Wang and Yuan (2017); 15 ¼ El-Maaty et al. (2017); 16 ¼ Amoatey and Ankrah (2017); 17 ¼ Venkateswaran and Murugasan (2017); 18 ¼
Santoso and Soeng (2016); 19 ¼ Bagaya and Song (2016); 20 ¼ Vilventhan and Kalidindi (2016); 21 ¼ Kim et al. (2016);
22 ¼ Asiedu and Alfen (2016); 23 ¼ Larsen et al. (2016); 24 ¼ Samarghandi et al. (2016); 25 ¼ Ruqaishi and Bashir (2015); 26 ¼ Ballesteros-Pérez et al. (2015); 27 ¼
Gunduz et al. (2015); 28 ¼ McCord et al. (2015); 29 ¼ Amoatey et al. (2015); 30 ¼ Bekr (2015); 31 ¼ Wang et al. (2014); 32 ¼ Russell et al. (2014); 33 ¼ González et al.
(2014); 34 ¼ Lindhard and Wandahl (2014); 35 ¼ Shehu et al. (2014); 36 ¼ Mahamid (2013); 37 ¼ Alsehaimi et al. (2013); 38 ¼ Akogbe et al. (2013); 39 ¼ Gündüz et al.
(2013); 40 ¼ Fallahnejad (2013); 41 ¼ Muya et al. (2013); 42 ¼ Ibironke et al. (2013); 43 ¼ Alinaitwe et al. (2013); 44 ¼ Anastasopoulos et al. (2012); 45 ¼ Shebob et al.
(2012); 46 ¼ Doloi, Sawhney and Iyer (2012) and Doloi, Sawhney, Iyer and Rentala (2012); 47 ¼ Mahamid et al. (2012); 48 ¼ Kazaz et al. (2012); 49 ¼ Doloi, Sawhney and
Iyer (2012) and Doloi, Sawhney, Iyer and Rentala (2012); 50 ¼ Hampton et al. (2012); 51 ¼ Mahamid (2011); 52 ¼ Bhargava et al. (2010); 53 ¼ Nguyen et al. (2010); 54 ¼
Apipattanavis et al. (2010); 55 ¼ Yang et al. (2010); 56 ¼ Khoshgoftar et al. (2010); 57 ¼ Enshassi et al. (2010); 58 ¼ Ahsan and Gunawan (2010); 59 ¼ Enshassi et al.
(2009); 60 ¼ Kaliba et al. (2009); 61 ¼ Al-Kharashi and Skitmore (2009); 62 ¼ Han et al. (2009); 63 ¼ Abd El-Razek et al. (2008); 64 ¼ Sweis et al. (2008); 65 ¼ Toor and
Ogunlana (2008); 66 ¼ Yang and Ou (2008); 67 ¼ Iyer et al. (2008); 68 ¼ Sambasivan and Soon (2007); 69 ¼ Alaghbari et al. (2007); 70 ¼ Iyer and Jha (2006); 71 ¼ Faridi
and El-Sayegh (2006); 72 ¼ Othman et al. (2006); 73 ¼ Aibinu and Odeyinka (2006); 74 ¼ Lo et al. (2006); 75 ¼ Assaf and Al-Hejji (2006); 76 ¼ Abdul-Rahman et al.
(2006); 77 ¼ Koushki et al. (2005); 78 ¼ Koushki and Kartam (2004); 79 ¼ Frimpong et al. (2003); 80 ¼ Chang (2002); 81 ¼ Manavazhi and Adhikari (2002); 82 ¼ Elinwa
and Joshua (2001); 83 ¼ Odeh and Battaineh (2001); 84 ¼ Al-Momani (2000); 85 ¼ Al-Khalil and Al-Ghafly (1999); 86 ¼ Abd. Majid and McCaffer (1998); 87 ¼ Mezher
and Tawil (1998); 88 ¼ Kumaraswamy and Chan (1998); 89 ¼ Chan and Kumaraswamy (1998); 90 ¼ Kaming et al. (1997); 91 ¼ Ogunlana et al. (1996); 92 ¼ Assaf et al.
(1995); 93 ¼ Mansfield et al. (1994); 94 ¼ M Dlakwa and Culpin (1990); 95 ¼ Arditi et al. (1985); 96 ¼ Gunduz and AbuHassan (2017); 97 ¼ Zidane and Andersen (2018)
projects
delays on
Causes of

construction

Table AI.