Scholarly Paper

Effects of Change Orders on Cost Growth,

Schedule Growth, and Construction Intensity of
Large Highway Projects
Pramen P. Shrestha, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE 1; and Ruiko Maharjan, Ph.D., S.M.ASCE 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 06/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Previous research have shown that change orders have a detrimental effect on cost growth and schedule growth of construction
projects. These studies mainly concentrated on the number of change orders for building or maintenance projects. However, correlation of the
number and change order growth with cost growth, schedule growth, and construction intensity of new highway projects has not been studied.
This study collected data from 185 projects from the state of Texas, whose costs amounted to more than $10M. The results showed that the
average change order growth for these projects was 7.0%, and also found a significant positive correlation in change order growth with cost
growth and schedule growth of these projects. The correlation coefficients of change order growth with cost growth and schedule growth were
found to be 0.57 and 0.44, respectively. When the projects were divided into two groups based on the change order growth, the results showed
that the cost growth and schedule growth significantly increased as the change order growth increased to greater than 5%. The number of
change orders were significantly and positively correlated with cost growth (0.23), schedule growth (0.30), and construction intensity (0.46).
When the number of change orders increased by more than 20, then the cost and schedule growth increased significantly. It is recommended
that Texas Department of Transportation engineers use an effective change management process to control the change orders in their highway
projects so that cost and schedule overruns could be minimized. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000264. © 2018 American Society of
Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Change order growth; Number of change orders; Texas Department of Transportation; Correlation.

Introduction The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) has to main-

During the construction of any type of project, change orders (COs)
are inevitable. However, the magnitude of the COs are a major
concern for the owners because they can have a detrimental effect
on the project’s cost and schedule growth and quality as well as the
morale of the project participants. Therefore, this is an important
area of interest to the owners, designers, and contractors.
COs are the changes made during the construction phase of a
project that are accepted by both parties, the contractors and the
owners. COs can originate for various reasons, including scope
changes by the owners, unforeseen conditions, or design errors.
These changes in the project needs to be controlled so that they have
minimal effect on the cost, schedule, quality, and productivity of the
project. In order to manage and control these changes, the Construc-
tion Industry Institute (CII) has developed a best practice known as
change management (CII 2017). The CII guidebook describes how
to manage change in early phases of a project so that they have
minimal effects on cost and schedule growth of a project during
construction.
1
Associate Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering and
Construction, Howard R. Hughes College of Engineering, Univ. of Nevada,
Las Vegas, NV 89154 (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org
/0000-0001-6362-2315. Email: pramen.shrestha@unlv.edu
2
Graduate Student, Civil and Environmental Engineering and Construc-
tion, Howard R. Hughes College of Engineering, Univ. of Nevada,
Las Vegas, NV 89154. Email: maharaja3@unlv.nevada.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 18, 2017; approved on
February 8, 2018; published online on May 29, 2018. Discussion period
open until October 29, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Legal Affairs
and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, © ASCE, ISSN
1943-4162.
tain approximately 197,000 lane-miles of highway and 34,500
bridges every year (TxDOT 2017a). In addition to maintenance,
TxDOT needs to construct or rehabilitate new roads and bridges
in order to provide these services to the public. Therefore, TxDOT
spends billions of dollars on contracts every year to construct and
maintain the roadway system (TxDOT 2017b). The costs of these
new and maintenance highway projects need to be controlled so
that the taxpayers’ money is used effectively. In addition, these
projects need to be completed within the schedule so that the road
users can use the roads when they are scheduled to open, and costs
to the road users need to be reduced when driving on these roads.
Therefore, it is very critical for TxDOT engineers to determine
whether CO growth and numbers for these projects are within
an acceptable range. They also need to determine whether these
changes have detrimental effects on the cost and schedule growth
of the projects.
According to TxDOT, COs are those alterations whose quantities
are amended in writing and at any time during the project construc-
tion phase. Based on the Construction Contract Administration
Manual of TxDOT, after the COs were issued, “the contractor will
perform work as increased or decreased, or altered” (TxDOT
2017c). If TxDOT initiated the COs, then TxDOT and the contractor
work together to develop the scope of the problem that needs to be
changed in the contract. TxDOT will evaluate the alternatives before
approving the COs, and the contractor must submit the cost
breakdowns and their justifications for any CO amounts. After these
costs are reviewed by TxDOT, the COs are approved so that
the changes and a time extension can be granted. For TxDOT,
detailed procedures for managing the COs are provided in the
Engineering, Architectural, and Surveying Services Manual
(TxDOT 2017d).

© ASCE 04518012-1 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2018, 10(3): 04518012

 Scope and Objectives of the Study
This study analyzed CO growth for new greenfield construction
projects undertaken by TxDOT from 2001 to 2016. The projects
included in this data set were from the construction of roads,
pavements, structures, drains, culverts, and so forth. The analysis
focused on determining the correlation of CO growth and number
of COs with the cost and schedule of these types of the projects.
It has been identified in the literature that COs affect the perfor-
mance of transportation projects, which is important because
that determines the success of a project (Shrestha et al. 2017;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 06/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Anastasopoulos et al. 2010; Ibbs 2008, 2012). Therefore, the main
objectives of this study were:
1. Determine the CO growth occurring in new highway projects.
2. Determine the correlation between CO growth and project
performance data (i.e., cost growth, schedule growth, and con-
struction intensity).
3. Determine the correlation between the number of COs and
project performance data (i.e., cost growth, schedule growth,
and construction intensity).
4. Determine the optimum values of COs for a project over which
there would be a detrimental effect on the cost, schedule growth,
and construction intensity of the project.
Definition of Change Order and Cost and Schedule
Metrics Used in the Study
To test the hypothesis, a total of five metrics were developed, two
metrics related to COs, one related to cost, and two related to sched-
ule. The aim of this study was to determine the correlation between
CO growth and number of COs with the cost and schedule perfor-
mance of new highway projects. Therefore, the COs were repre-
sented by two metrics, one for CO growth, expressed in terms of
percentage growth against the total contract cost, and the other
for the number of COs. One cost-performance metric was cost
growth and the two schedule-performance metrics were schedule
growth and construction intensity. Table 1 shows the equations used
to calculate these metrics.
Literature Review
Review of past studies mainly focused on the causes and the effects
of COs on the cost, schedule, and construction intensity of trans-
portation and other types of construction projects. COs affect the
overall cost and schedule of a project, resulting in claims and
disputes between the owner and the contractor. Therefore, it is an
important parameter, and requires close attention to complete a
project successfully.
Table 1. Metrics for COs, cost, and schedule
Number Metric
1 Change order growth
2 Number of change orders
3 Cost growth
4 Schedule growth
5 Construction intensity
© ASCE
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2018, 10(3): 04518012
Several factors cause COs, mainly during the construction
phase of a project, such as poor estimation, unforeseen site
conditions, and a change in scope. Previous studies regarding
COs focused more on new and maintenance building projects;
however, some studies conducted on highway maintenance proj-
ects that showed a negative relationship between COs and cost
and schedule growth. Therefore, this literature review were cat-
egorized into two sections, one that covered COs for building
projects and another that covered COs for highway maintenance
and infrastructure projects.
The top five causes that generate COs in public projects were
poor estimation, unforeseen site conditions, political pressure dur-
ing construction stage, poor soil investigation, and client-initiated
variation (Halwatura and Ranasinghe 2013). The findings of this
study were based on surveys of 50 respondents who had experience
in road construction projects in Sri Lanka. Dickson et al. (2015)
conducted a questionnaire survey to determine the factors that
cause COs to occur in civil engineering construction projects in
Kenya. There were 12 clients, 32 consultants, and 51 contractors
who responded to this survey. They ranked delay in land acquis-
ition, differing site conditions, change in scope, change in schedule
by client, and lack of coordination as the top five important causes
of COs. Rowland (1981) found that the rate of COs increased as the
project size and complexity increased. These findings were based
on a study of 18 public works construction projects in the southern
United States.
Past research found that COs mostly were generated due to de-
sign changes in the projects (Ndihokubway and Haupt 2008;
Alnuaimi et al. 2010; Gunhan et al. 2007; Bordat et al. 2004). Some
of the research found that factors that contributed to changes in the
projects included clients, consultants, contractors, state regulation
statutes, adverse weather conditions, political pressure, poor estima-
tion, poor site investigation, and unforeseen site conditions
(Ndihokubway and Haupt 2008; Alnuaimi et al. 2010; Jawad et al.
2009; Serag et al. 2010). Serag et al. (2010) developed models to
predict CO growth based on 11 variables found in 16 Florida
DOT projects. The contract values of these projects ranged of
$10 million–$25 million. The authors found that CO growth was
significantly correlated to the timing of the COs and unforeseen
conditions.
Other research found that CO growths occurring in road main-
tenance projects had a relationship with road surface types and
project types (Shrestha et al. 2017; Anastasopoulos et al. 2010).
Shrestha et al. found that mixed-surface road pavements (14.7%)
had significantly higher amounts of COs compared to gravel surfaces
(13.1%) and earthen surfaces (14.7%) in Kenyan highway projects.
Anastasopoulos et al. (2010) found that resurfacing and traffic main-
tenance work had a significantly greater number of COs than earth-
work and subsoil treatment projects. Both of these studies found that
Equation to calculate the metric Unit
Total Change Order Amount %
× 100
Contract Award Amount
— No.
Final Amount-Engineers’ Estimated Amount %
× 100
Engineers’ Estimated Amount
Final completion duration − Contract duration %
× 100
Bid Days
Final Construction Cost $=day
× 100
Final project completion duration
04518012-2 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
 COs were negatively correlated with the size of the projects; that is,
as the size of project increased, the CO growths decreased.
The literature showed that studies mainly were conducted using
data from building projects, highway maintenance projects, or in-
frastructure projects. In a survey of building contractors, Jawad
et al. (2009) found that cost overruns due to COs was in the range
of 5–10% of the original contract cost. Similarly, the effect of COs
on schedule growth was less than 10% of its original contract
duration. Ibbs (2012) found that changes in industrial building proj-
ects increased the chance of cost growth by 42%. Another study by
Ibbs (2008) found that COs decreased productivity by 20% in 40%
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 06/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of the building projects that were analyzed. This researcher also
found that these COs increased the project duration by 16% in
50% of the projects analyzed. Similarly, other researchers found
that there was a loss of the productivity due to COs (Thomas
and Napolitan 1995; Ibbs 2008; Hanna et al. 1999; Vandenberg
1996). Overall, past research conducted with building projects
showed that COs had negative effects on the cost and schedule
of the projects.
Limited research has been conducted for new construction of
highways and infrastructure projects. In a study conducted based
on the interviews, surveys, and case studies, Alnuaimi et al. (2010)
found that COs caused cost overruns, schedule delays, and disputes
in a project. This finding was based on four case studies representing
public works in Oman for water transmission, roads, buildings, and
ports. In addition, Assaf and Al-Hejji (2006) found that COs were
the common cause of time overruns during the construction phase of
projects. This finding was based on a time-performance survey with
owners, consultants, and contractors in Saudi Arabia, and covered
various types of construction projects. These researchers surveyed
57 contractors, consultants, and owners; they found that two-thirds
of the respondents agreed that there was about a 10% time overrun
in projects due to COs. Additionally, the occurrence of COs for con-
struction during the execution of a project resulted, on average, of a
30% loss in labor efficiency (Thomas and Napolitan 1995). Bordat
et al. (2004) found that Indiana DOT (INDOT) had an historical
problem with costs, schedule overruns, and excessive COs. This
group analyzed 2001 INDOT projects, and showed that the average
cost overrun was higher for bridge projects (8.1%) compared to road
resurfacing (5.6%), traffic projects (5.6%), and maintenance projects
(7.5%). In addition, more projects had cost overruns (55%) than time
overruns (12%). Emadelbeltagi et al. (2014) surveyed 385 engineers
involved in the construction industry, found that a major effect that
COs had on projects was increased cost and schedule. Another study
on highway improvement projects showed that the effect of COs de-
pended on the type of contract (Choi et al. 2016). This group found
that COs had a greater effect on cost growth for incentives/
disincentives (I/D) contracts than on A þ B contracts. However,
opposite was true for schedule growth.
Various models have been developed to predict the number of
COs and growth in COs for maintenance projects. Anastasopoulos
et al. (2010) found that a zero-inflated negative binomial regression
model was a good model to predict the number of COs based on
project type, contract type, project duration, and project cost. This
group collected data from 1,939 highway projects of Indiana DOT
that were constructed between 1996 and 2000.
Based on the literature, it is clear that a gap exists regarding
the effect of COs on cost and schedule growth of new highway
projects. This study hopes to fill this knowledge gap by determin-
ing the average CO growth and the number of COs that occur in
new highway projects as well as the effect of these changes on
cost growth, schedule growth, and construction intensity of the
projects.
© ASCE 04518012-3
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2018, 10(3): 04518012
Research Methods
The research methodology for this study was divided into five
steps. The first step consisted of questionnaire development. The
second step was to send the questionnaire to TxDOT and collect
the data. In the third step, after the data were collected, metrics were
developed for COs and performance measures that related to cost
and schedule. In the fourth step, the research and null hypotheses
were developed. Finally, in the fifth step, these null hypotheses
were tested using statistical tests. These steps are described in detail
as follows.
Questionnaire Development
First, a questionnaire was developed to collect data regarding COs,
cost, and schedule of projects from the Texas Department of Trans-
portation (TxDOT). The questionnaire collected data related to the
project ID, the type of project, the location of the project (county),
construction completion year, the cost of the COs, the number
of COs, the estimated project cost, contract project cost, final com-
pletion project cost, contact duration, and final duration for project
completion. The questionnaire was developed in an electronic pdf
file that was fillable to make it be easy for TxDOT staff to enter
the data.
Data Collection
Before sending the questionnaire, the appropriate person was iden-
tified in the Contract Department of TxDOT. The authors called this
person to request the data; upon agreement to participate in this
study, the questionnaire was sent to this person. The respondent
was asked to provide data for new highway projects constructed
after 2001 up to 2016. After the data was sent back to the research-
ers by the respondents, any missing data was located by an online
database available on the TxDOT website.
The data from the projects were matched using the project ID.
Later, the data were sorted based on the project completion cost.
Only the projects that had costs of more than $10 million equivalent
to a 2017 July cost was included in the analysis. The project com-
pletion cost was adjusted using cost indices from the Engineering
News Record (ENR 2017). Data from 185 new highway projects
were collected.
Research Hypothesis
Eight research hypotheses were developed for this study. The first
three related to the correlation of CO growth with cost growth,
schedule growth, and construction intensity. Another three research
hypotheses related to the correlation between the number of COs
and cost growth, schedule growth, and construction intensity.
The last two research hypotheses related the optimum value of
CO growth and number of COs beyond which the cost growth,
schedule growth, and construction intensity significantly increase.
Null Hypothesis
Each of the research hypotheses was converted to a null hypothesis
in order to conduct the statistical test. Eight null hypotheses were
developed for this study. The first three stated that the correlation
coefficients of the CO growth with cost growth, schedule growth,
and construction intensity were not significantly different from zero.
The next three stated that the correlation coefficients for the number
of COs with cost growth, schedule growth, and construction inten-
sity were not significantly different from zero. Eqs. (1)–(6) can be
used mathematically to represent these null hypotheses. The term
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
 β used in these equations represents the correlation coefficient val-
ues. The seventh null hypothesis stated that the mean values for cost
growth, schedule growth, and construction intensity were not signifi-
cantly different when the growth in COs exceeded an optimum
value. Similarly, the last null hypothesis stated that the mean values
for cost growth, schedule growth, and construction intensity were
not significantly different when the number of COs exceeded an
optimum value. Eqs. (7) and (8) can be used to express these null
hypotheses mathematically. The term μ used in these equations
represents the population of the groups
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 06/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
β change order growth vs:cost growth ¼ 0
β change order growth vs:schedule growth ¼ 0
β change order growth vs:construction intensity ¼ 0
β number of change order vs:cost growth ¼ 0
β number of change order vs:schedule growth ¼ 0
β number of change order vs:construction intensity ¼ 0
μcost growth below optimum change order growth value
¼ μcost growth above optimum change order gowth value
μcost growth below optimum number of change order
¼ μcost growth above optimum number of change order
Statistical Analysis
To prove or reject the null hypotheses, statistical tests need to be
conducted. For the correlation test, the appropriate test was the
Pearson linear correlation test because the variables are in a ratio
scale. However, before conducting this test, it should be verified
whether the data distributions related to the COs, cost, and schedule
metrics are normally distributed (Real Statistics 2017). To check
the normality of the data, the Shapiro-Wilko test was conducted;
it was found that all the data set were not normally distributed.
(The results of this test are shown in the “Results” section). How-
ever, the normal distribution test is a robust test. As the size of the
sample was more than 30 in this case, this parametric test could be
conducted to determine the correlation between these variables.
Also, a nonparametric test, i.e., Spearman’s correlation test, was
conducted to determine the correlation between these two variables
to determine the differences in the results (Leard Statistics 2017b).
Similarly, both the t-test and the Mann-Whitney U test were con-
ducted to determine whether there was a difference among the
values for cost growth, schedule growth, and construction intensity
based on an optimum value of CO growth and the number of COs
(Leard Statistics 2017a).
Pearson and Spearman’s Correlation Tests
Pearson and Spearman’s correlation tests were conducted to deter-
mine whether the CO growth and the number of COs were signifi-
cantly correlated to cost growth, schedule growth, and construction
intensity. These tests show the correlation coefficients among these
variables. A correlation coefficient below 0.3 is considered to be a
weak relationship; a value in between 0.3 and 0.5 is considered to
be a moderate relationship; values more than 0.5–0.7 are consid-
ered as having a strong relationship; and values above 0.70 are con-
sidered to be a very strong relationship among the variables
(Dummies: A Wiley Brand 2018). If the p-value was found to
© ASCE
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2018, 10(3): 04518012
be equal to or less than 0.05, this confirmed that the correlations
among these variables were significant. If the p-value was found
to be less than 0.01, then the correlation coefficients were highly
significant. Whichever test provided the strongest correlations,
those results were reported.
t-test and Mann-Whitney U Test
The t-test and Mann-Whitney U test were conducted to determine
whether the values of cost growth, schedule growth, and construc-
tion intensity were significantly different in two groups, based on
the optimum values of CO growth and the number of COs. If the
ð1Þ p-values were found to be less than 0.05, then the null hypothesis
would be rejected, confirming the research hypothesis that the
ð2Þ values of these groups were significantly different. If p-values
were found to be less than 0.01, the difference in values would
ð3Þ be considered as highly significant. In this case also, whichever test
yielded strongest difference, those results were reported.
ð4Þ
ð5Þ Results
ð6Þ First, the entire data set for 185 projects was plotted based on the
CO growth, the number of COs, cost growth, schedule growth, and
construction intensity. The box plots in Figs. 1–5 indicate that there
were outliers in the data set based on these five variables. However,
ð7Þ
outliers were not removed because the authors could not prove that
the outliers were due to a nonrepetitive error. Therefore, all the data
for 185 projects were used to determine the mean, the median, and
ð8Þ the standard deviation values for these variables.
Descriptive Statistics
The mean values for CO growth, cost growth, and schedule growth
was plotted, as shown in Fig. 6. Results indicate that the average
values of CO growth for these projects were found to be 7%;
furthermore, these COs increased the cost by 6.6%, on average,
and schedule by 21%.
Table 2 shows a summary of (1) the descriptive statistics for the
CO growth, (2) the number of COs, and (3) the cost growth, sched-
ule growth, and construction intensity of these projects. This table
indicates that schedule growth was found to be higher than cost
growth and CO growth. Data analysis showed that 35 COs occurred
in highway projects, on average. The mean value for construction
intensity was found to be about $38,809=day. By comparing the
Fig. 1. Boxplot of change order growth.
04518012-4 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 06/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Boxplot of number of change order. Fig. 5. Boxplot of construction intensity.

Fig. 6. Mean values of change order growth, cost growth, and schedule
growth.
Fig. 3. Boxplot of cost growth.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of variables (N ¼ 185)

Standard
Number Name of variables Mean Median deviation
1 Change order growth (%) 7.0 3.9 12.5
2 Number of change 35 20 34
orders (count)
3 Cost growth (%) 6.6 4.3 22.7
4 Schedule growth (%) 21.0 15.6 31.0
5 Construction intensity ($/day) 38,809 30,914 26,163

mean and median values of all these variables, it can be seen that
there are some outliers in this data set. However, the outliers were
not removed because the data were collected randomly from the
TxDOT, and it could not be proved that the outliers were due to
a nonrepetitive error.

Results of the Statistical Tests

A correlation test was conducted to determine the relationship of
Fig. 4. Boxplot of schedule growth.
CO growth and number of COs with cost growth, schedule growth,

© ASCE 04518012-5 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2018, 10(3): 04518012

 Table 3. Results for the Shapiro-Wilk normality test
Sample
Number Variables size Statistics
1 Change order growth 185 0.66
2 Number of change orders 185 0.75
3 Cost growth 185 0.96
4 Schedule growth 185 0.93
5 Construction intensity 185 0.75
a
Significant at alpha level 0.01.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 06/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
and construction intensity. Similarly, in order to determine the
optimum values for CO growth and the number of COs—after
which cost growth, schedule growth, and construction intensity
significantly increases—the t-test was conducted. However, to
use the t-test, the data needed to be checked for normality. There-
fore, the Shapiro-Wilk test was conducted to determine whether the
data were normally distributed.
Table 3, which shows the results of Shapiro-Wilk test, indicates
that none of the data were normally distributed. In this test, the null
hypothesis stated that the population is normally distributed, which
would be rejected if the p-value was less than 0.05. Therefore, for
CO growth, the number of COs, cost growth, schedule growth,
and construction intensity, the p-values were found to be less than
0.05, which showed that the data were not normally distributed.
However, normal distribution tests are very robust, and conceiv-
ably can be applied to nonnormally distributed data. Also, if the
sample size is more than 30, the data can be considered to be
normally distributed, which was true in this case. Therefore, the
Pearson correlation test and the t-test could be performed instead
of nonparametric tests, Spearman’s correlation test, and the Mann-
Whitney U test. However, the authors conducted both the paramet-
ric and nonparametric tests in order to determine the differences
in the results.
Correlation Test Results
Pearson and Spearman’s correlation tests were conducted to
determine the association of CO growth and the number of COs
with cost growth, schedule growth, and construction intensity.
The results of the Pearson test for the correlation of CO growth
and the number of COs and cost, schedule growth, and construc-
tion intensity are described as follows. Also, the results of
Spearman’s correlation test among these variables is shown in
Appendixes I and II.
Pearson and Spearman’s Correlation Test Results for Change
Order Growth. Table 4 shows the results of Pearson correlation
test for the coefficients values of CO growth with cost growth,
schedule growth, and construction intensity. Test results showed
that the CO growth had a positive correlation with cost growth
(0.57) and schedule growth (0.44). Both of these correlation coef-
ficients were moderately strong and highly significant at alpha level
0.05. In addition, the results showed that the COs increased the cost
growth and the schedule growth of highway projects. However,
there was no significant correlation between CO growth and con-
struction intensity. This finding showed that the speed of the
Table 4. Pearson correlation test results for change order growth
Performance Sample Correlation
Number metrics size coefficient
1 Cost growth 185 0.57
2 Schedule growth 185 0.44
3 Construction intensity 185 0.04
a
Significant at alpha level 0.01.
© ASCE
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2018, 10(3): 04518012
Table 5. Pearson correlation test results for the number of change orders
Performance Sample Correlation
p-value Number metrics size coefficient p-value
a
0.00 1 Cost growth 185 0.23 0.00a
0.00a 2 Schedule growth 185 0.30 0.00a
0.00a 3 Construction intensity 185 0.46 0.00a
0.00a a
Significant at alpha level 0.01.
0.00a
construction would not decrease if the amount of COs increased
in the projects.
The data also was analyzed using the nonparametric Spearman’s
correlation test, and the results are shown in Appendix I. The results
showed that correlation coefficients for all these relationships were
lower than for the results from the Pearson correlation test.
Pearson and Spearman’s Correlation Test Results for the
Number of Change Orders. Results from the parametric correla-
tion test showed that the number of COs was significantly corre-
lated to cost growth, schedule growth, and construction intensity
(Table 5). The correlation coefficient between the number of
COs and cost growth (0.23) and the number of COs and schedule
growth (0.30) were less than that obtained for CO growth. The
strength of the correlation between these variables was not strong;
however, in both cases, the correlations were found to be highly
significant at alpha level 0.05. This test also showed that the
number of COs had a significant correlation with construction in-
tensity (0.46), and correlation was found to be moderately strong.
It showed that if the number of COs increased, then the speed of
construction would increase. The correlation test was conducted
once again using the nonparametric test, and the results are shown
in Appendix II. The results showed the similar findings as in the
Pearson correlation test.
Results of the t-Test and Mann-Whitney U Test
The t-test and the Mann-Whitney U test were used to determine the
difference between the performance metrics for cost and schedule,
based on amount of CO growth and the number of COs. This analy-
sis determined the optimum values for CO growth and the number
of COs above which cost growth, schedule growth, and construc-
tion intensity would increase significantly. These tests were
conducted for CO growth as well as the number of COs, described
as follows.
t-Test and Mann-Whitney U Test Results for Chang Order
Growth. Before conducting this test, data for cost, schedule,
and construction intensity were divided into two groups, based
on CO growth. It was found that the median value for CO growth
for this dataset was 3.9%. Therefore, the analysis was conducted
four times by dividing the project data into two groups based
on 3–6% CO growth. When the cost growth was divided into
two groups based on 3–6% CO growth, the t-statistics for the t-tests
were found to be 4.42, 5.57, 5.96, 5.70, respectively (Table 6).
Therefore, it can be concluded that the difference in mean values
for cost growth in the two groups was significantly the largest at
alpha level 0.05 when the groups were divided based on 5% CO
growth. This showed that if the CO growth increased by more 5%,
then it would have a significantly adverse effect on cost growth of
the projects. The difference between the values of cost growth was
19.8% when the projects were divided based on 5% cutoff point for
p-value CO growth. Table 6 also showed that in the case of schedule
0.00a growth, the difference was highest and significant when the proj-
0.00a ects were divided based on a 5% cutoff point for CO growth. The
0.54 difference between the values of schedule growth was found to
be 19.1%.
04518012-6 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.
 Table 6. Results of the t-test for change order growth
Cost growth Schedule growth
Amount of change
order growth t-critical Mean (%) t-statistics p-value Mean (%) t-statistics p-value
Equal or less than 3% 1.97 −1.8 4.42 0.00 a
12.0 3.40 0.00a
More than 3% 12.9 27.2
Equal or less than 4% 1.97 −1.9 5.57 0.00a 11.5 4.25 0.00a
More than 4% 16.2 30.4
Equal or less than 5% 1.97 −1.3 5.96 0.00a 12.8 4.35 0.00a
More than 5% 18.5 31.9
Equal or less than 6% 1.97 −0.7 5.70 0.00a 13.1 4.22 0.00a
More than 6% 18.4 32.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 06/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

a
Significant at alpha level 0.01.

The results of t-test regarding construction intensity was not
shown in Table 6 because the difference was not found to be sig-
nificant. Results showed that the amount of CO growth did not have
any adverse effect on the speed with which construction in highway
projects were completed for those projects whose data were
collected for this study. The nonparametric test, the Mann-Whitney
U test, was conducted to determine whether the results were
similar, which they were. The results of this test for two groups of
projects, divided based on a 5% cutoff point of CO growth, is
shown in Appendix III.
Mann-Whitney U Test Results for Number of Change Order.
The t-test and the Mann-Whitney U test were conducted once again,
based on the number of COs. The median value for the number of
COs was found to be 20. Therefore, the projects were divided into
two groups, one consisting of projects that had less than 20 COs and
the other that had more than 20 COs. The results of the t-test, shown
in Table 7, indicated that as the number of COs increased by
more than 20, the cost growth and schedule growth increased sig-
nificantly. The cost growth and schedule growth of projects that
had more than 20 COs (11.5 and 28.5%, respectively) were
significantly higher than for cost growth and schedule growth of
the projects that had less than 20 COs (0.2 and 11.6%, respectively).
Similar results were found for construction intensity. Therefore, as
the number of COs increased to over 20, the cost growth, schedule
growth, and construction intensity increased significantly for new
highway projects. It showed that the engineers need to limit the num-
ber of change orders within 20, so that the effect on cost and sched-
ule growth will be minimum. In addition, the Mann-Whitney
test was conducted to determine whether the results would be differ-
ent; however, it was found that this nonparametric test yielded
similar results. The results of the Mann-Whitney test are shown
in Appendix IV.
Discussions
The major findings of this study are as follows:
• As the CO growth increased, the cost growth and schedule
growth increased for these new highway projects.
• As the CO growth increased beyond 5%, the effects of this
increase on cost growth and schedule growth was highly signif-
icant and severe.
• As the number of COs increased, cost growth, schedule
growth, and construction intensity increased for these highway
projects.
• As the number of COs increased beyond 20, the effect on cost
and schedule growth was highly significant and severe.
This study found that the mean CO growth for new highway
projects constructed by TxDOT that cost more than $10 M was
7.0%. This CO growth for new highways was less than for bridge
projects (8.1%) and maintenance projects (7.5%), but higher than
for road resurfacing (5.6%) and traffic projects (5.6%), as reported
by Bordat et al. (2004). When compared to the findings from
Shrestha et al. (2017) for road maintenance projects of Kenya,
new highway projects of TxDOT had significantly fewer COs.
Therefore, compared to previous studies for new highways and
maintenance projects, the CO growth for TxDOT new highway
projects were comparatively lower.
The correlation between CO growth and cost growth for these
projects was similar to those found for other infrastructure and main-
tenance projects as well as for building projects. This study found a
significant and moderately strong positive correlation of CO growth
with cost growth of the projects. The cost growth was measured as
the difference between the final project cost and the engineer’s
estimate divided by the engineer’s estimate. Similarly, other studies
(e.g., Shrestha et al. 2017; Ibbs 2008, 2012) found that COs nega-
tively affected cost growth. This study also found that the limit for
CO growth was 5% of the total project cost. When the percentage
exceeded this limit, then the effect of COs on cost growth was highly
significant. According to this data set, a percentage of 5% of COs is
the maximum that the state DOTs should limit; if the COs exceeded
this percentage, then cost growth significantly increases.
This study also determined that the number of COs had a detri-
mental effect on cost growth. The results showed a significant
positive correlation between these two variables, validating the
hypothesis that as the number of CO increases, the cost growth
increases. This study found that the optimum number of COs is
20; if the number of COs increased more than this number, then

Table 7. Results of t-test for the number of change orders

Construction intensity
Cost growth Schedule growth ($ per day)
Number of
change order Mean (%) t-statistics p Mean (%) t-statistics p Mean t-statistics p
≤20 changes 0.2 3.51 0.00a 11.6 3.82 0.00a 31K 3.80 0.00a
>20 changes 11.5 28.5 45K
a
Significant at alpha level 0.01.

© ASCE 04518012-7 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2018, 10(3): 04518012

 the cost growth would be affected severely. Anastasopoulos et al.
(2010) found a nonlinear correlation of the number of COs with
the contract amount.
There was also positive correlation between CO growth and
schedule growth. As the CO growth increased in a project, the
schedule growth increased. Other researchers found a similar rela-
tionship (Alnuaimi et al. 2010; Assaf and Al-Hejji 2006; Thomas
and Napolitan 1995; Emadelbeltagi et al. 2014; Choi et al. 2016;
Shrestha et al. 2017). However, finding from past research were
based on data from building and road maintenance projects. A pos-
itive relationship between the number of COs and schedule growth
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 06/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The primary contribution of this study to the body of knowl-
edge was finding a significant correlation between COs with cost
growth and schedule growth for new highway projects. This
study also determined the optimum percentage and number of
COs that state DOTs need to aim for so that the COs will not have
negative effect on cost and schedule of the new highway projects.
Because this is the first comprehensive study on the correlation
between the COs with cost growth, schedule growth, and
construction intensity for new highway projects, the authors rec-
ommend for further study using data from other state DOTs.
This effort could help engineers from state DOTs to determine

also was found, which validated the hypothesis that as the number whether the effects of COs in their state were similar to that
of COs increased, the schedule growth will be negatively affected. for TxDOT.
Finally, Anastasopoulos et al. (2010) found a nonlinear correlation
of the number of COs with contract duration. This current study
showed that when the number of COs increased more than 20, then Appendix I. Spearman’s Correlation Test Results for
the schedule growth will increase significantly. Change Order Growth
This study did not find any significant correlation between CO
growth and construction intensity. However, when the number of Performance Sample Correlation
COs increased over 20, then the construction intensity increased Number metrics size coefficient p-value
significantly. This result is counterintuitive in that the increase 1 Cost growth 185 0.46 0.00a
in the number of COs had a negative effect on productivity and 2 Schedule growth 185 0.32 0.00a
construction speed. The authors thought that the correlation found 3 Construction intensity 185 0.03 0.71
between these variables was not due to causation; therefore, further a
Significant at alpha level 0.01.
investigation should occur on whether the construction intensity
increased due to an increase in the number of COs. Past researchers
had not studied the correlation between the number of COs and
construction intensity for any type of project. Appendix II. Spearman’s Correlation Test Results
for Number of Change Order

Performance Sample Correlation

Conclusions Number metrics size coefficient p-value

This study investigated the correlation between CO growth and 1 Cost growth 185 0.28 0.00a
2 Schedule growth 185 0.31 0.00a
number of COs with cost growth, schedule growth, and construc-
3 Construction intensity 185 0.35 0.00a
tion intensity. This study found that in new highway construction
a
built by TxDOT, the average CO growth was 7% and the number of Significant at alpha level 0.01.
COs was 35. The results showed that CO growth and the number of
COs negatively affected cost growth. This study also found that
up to a 5% growth in COs, the effects on cost growth was not Appendix III. Results of Mann-Whitney U Test for
severe. However, COs significantly affected cost growth once Change Order Growth
the limit of 5% was crossed. Similarly, when the number of
COs increased to greater than 20, the effect on cost growth became Mean values of
highly significant. performance metrics
Performance Chi-square
The findings regarding the effects of CO growth and the number metrics ≤5% change >5% change value p-value
of COs on schedule growth was similar to findings for cost growth,
Cost growth −1.3% 18.3% 31.6 0.00a
showing a negative effect on schedule growth. Similar to cost Schedule growth 12.8% 31.9% 14.0 0.01a
growth, for schedule growth, a 5% growth in COs was the optimum Construction $38,254=day $39,553=day 1.4 0.24
value beyond which schedule growth would be affected signifi- intensity
cantly. In addition, the number of COs beyond which schedule a
Significant at alpha level 0.01.
growth would be affected significantly was 20. To the best knowl-
edge of the authors, this study was the first to consider COs for new
highway construction; the results were similar to those for studies
involving building and highway maintenance projects. Appendix IV. Results of Mann-Whitney U Test for
The findings from this study could be a great value for TxDOT the Number of Change Orders
planning engineers, planners, and administrators, because they can
Mean values of
use the findings to reduce the amount and number of COs in their performance metrics
projects so that there would be minimal effect on cost and schedule Performance Chi-square
performance during the construction phase. The policy makers and metrics ≤20 changes >20 changes value p-value
engineers should scope and design the projects more effectively in Cost growth 0.2% 11.5% 12.1 0.00a
order to reduce the number and amount of COs during new high- Schedule growth 11.6% 28.5% 13.0 0.00b
way construction. It is recommended that TxDOT engineers use Construction $30,917=day $45,091=day 12.4 0.00b
more effective change management practices in order to reduce intensity
the effect of COs on cost and schedule overruns in their projects a
Significant at alpha level 0.05.
b
during construction phase. Significant at alpha level 0.01.

© ASCE 04518012-8 J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.

J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2018, 10(3): 04518012

 Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the support provided by the
Texas Department of Transportation during data collection for this
study. Without their support, the data collection and analysis for
this study would not have been possible. Any views and findings
provided here in the paper are of solely of the authors, and have no
inputs from TxDOT personnel.
References
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIV OF CONNECTICUT LIBRARIES on 06/04/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Works Cited
Alnuaimi, A. S., R. A. Taha, M. Al Mohsin, and A. S. Al-Harthi. 2010.
“Causes, effects, benefits, and remedies of COs on public construction
projects in Oman.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 136 (5): 615–622. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000154.
Anastasopoulos, P. C., S. Labi, A. Bhargava, C. Bordat, and F. L. Mannering.
2010. “Frequency of COs in highway construction using alternate
count-data modeling methods.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 136 (8):
886–893. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000198.
Assaf, S. A., and S. Al-Hejji. 2006. “Causes of delay in large construction
projects.” Int. J. Project Manage. 24 (4): 349–357. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.ijproman.2005.11.010.
Bordat, C., B. G. McCullouch, S. Labi, and K. Sinha. 2004. An analysis
of cost overruns and time delays of INDOT projects. FHWA/IN/
JTRP-2004/7, SPR-2811. Washington, DC: Transportation Research
Board.
Choi, K., H. Lee, J. Bae, and D. Bilbo. 2016. “Time-cost performance effect
of COs from accelerated contract provisions.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
142 (3): 04015085. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
.0001071.
CII (Construction Industry Institute). 2017. “Change management.”
Accessed October 2, 2017. https://www.construction-institute.org
/resources/knowledgebase/best-practices/change-management.
Dickson, O. D., M. Gerryshom, and G. Wanyona. 2015. “Variations in civil
engineering construction projects in Kenya: Causes and effects.” Int. J.
Eng. Res. Tech. 4 (2): 1124–1129.
Dummies: A Wiley Brand. 2018. “How to interpret a correlation
coefficient R.” Accessed January 26, 2018. http://www.dummies.com
/education/math/statistics/how-to-interpret-a-correlation-coefficient-r/.
Emadelbeltagi, A. A., A. Elshahat, and M. Dawood. 2014. “Causes and
effects of COs on construction projects in Kuwait.” J. Eng. Res. Appl.
4 (7): 01–08.
ENR (Engineering News-Record). 2017. “Construction cost index
history.” Accessed October 5, 2017. https://www.enr.com/economics
/historical_indices.
Gunhan, S., D. Arditi, and J. Doyle. 2007. “Avoiding COs in public school
construction.” J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 133 (1): 67–73. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(2007)133:1(67).
Halwatura, R. U., and N. P. N. P. Ranasinghe. 2013. “Causes of variation
orders in road construction projects in Sri Lanka.” J. ISRN Constr. Eng.
2013: 7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/381670.
© ASCE 04518012-9
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr., 2018, 10(3): 04518012
Hanna, A. S., J. S. Russell, E. V. Nordheim, and M. J. Bruggink 1999.
“Impact of change orders on labor efficiency for electrical construc-
tion.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 125 (4): 224–232. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1999)125:4(224).
Ibbs, C. W. 2008. “The cumulative impact of change on construction labor
productivity.” October 13, 2017. http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/∼ibbs
/BRICS/Materials/Ibbs%20%26%20Leonard%20Curves_2008.pdf.
Ibbs, C. W. 2012. “Construction change: Likelihood, severity, and impact
on productivity.” J. Leg. Aff. Disp. Resolut. Eng. Constr. 4 (3): 67–73.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000089.
Jawad, R. S., R. Abdulkader, and A. A. Abang Ali. 2009. “Variation orders
in construction projects.” J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 4 (3): 170–176.
Laerd Statistics. 2017a. “Mann-whitney U test using SPSS statistics.”
October 5, 2017. https://statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials/mann-whitney
-u-test-using-spss-statistics.php.
Laerd Statistics. 2017b. “Spearman’s rank-order correlation using SPSS
statistics.” October 5, 2017. https://statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials
/spearmans-rank-order-correlation-using-spss-statistics.php.
Ndihokubway, R., and T. C. Haupt. 2008. “Uncovering the origins of
variation orders.” In Proc., 5th Postgraduate Conf.–Construction
Industry Development Board. Bloemfontein, South Africa.
Real Statistics Using Excel. 2017. “Introduction to non-parametric
tests.” Accessed October 5, 2017. http://www.real-statistics.com/non
-parametric-tests/introduction-non-parametric-tests/.
Rowland, H. J. 1981. The causes and effects of COs on the construction
process. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology.
Serag, E., A. Oloufa, L. Malone, and E. Radwan. 2010. “Model for
quantifying the impact of COs on project cost for U.S. Roadwork
construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 136 (9): 1015–1027. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000206.
Shrestha, P. P., K. K. Shrestha, and T. K. Kandie. 2017. “Effects of COs on
the cost and schedule of rural road maintenance projects.” J. Leg. Aff.
Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr. 9 (3): 04517010. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000227.
Thomas, H. R., and C. L. Napolitan. 1995. “Quantitative effects of
construction changes on labor productivity.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
121 (3): 290–296. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1995)
121:3(290).
TxDOT (Texas Department of Transportation). 2017a. “2015-2019 stra-
tegic plan.” Accessed October 2, 2017. https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub
/txdot-info/sla/strategic-plan-2015-2019.pdf.
TxDOT (Texas Department of Transportation). 2017b. “Construction and
maintenance project information.” Accessed October 2, 2017. http://
www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/construction/projects.html.
TxDOT (Texas Department of Transportation). 2017c. “Manual notice,
changes to the contract: Section 1: COs.” Accessed October 3, 2017.
http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/cah/changes_to_contract
.htm.
TxDOT (Texas Department of Transportation). 2017d. “Manual notice,
engineering, surveying, and architectureal negotiated contracts.”
Accessed October 4, 2017. http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals
/ncp/engineeringsurveyingarchitecturalnegotiatedcontracts.htm.
Vandenberg, P. J. 1996. “The impact of COs on mechanical construction
labor efficiency.” Master thesis, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison.
J. Leg. Aff. Dispute Resolut. Eng. Constr.