Ability To Effectively Brief The Design Team Construction Essay

Published: Last Edited:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

The construction processes include setting out, excavation, casting of concrete blinding, the placement of reinforcement, casting of foundations, setting of kickers / setting of blocks, casting of lintel, block-laying, deck preparation, placement of reinforcement, placement of pipes for electrical and sanitary works as well as the casting of slabs. If it is a multi-storey building, then the processes are repeated. If it is a single storey building that is under construction, then the next stages will be the casting of the ring, placing / fixing of trusses, roofing, plastering and painting of the building. A good knowledge of these processes will aid prompt delivery of facility in the form of quick decision taking in response to queries that might cause delays at any stage of the processes.

Pheng and Chuan (2005) rate the type of client as the third factor of the fourteen found to negatively affect project performance. Clients� understanding of the project constraints afford appreciation of the challenges encountered by the main contractor to a project. Koushki et al. (2005) identify the client�s lack of experience as a major contributor to time delay. Leung et al. (2004) report that clients� construction experience has a high loading regarding testing relationship between management mechanisms and the satisfaction variables for construction projects. Constraints are circumstances / situations outside the immediate control of parties to a contract that affect the smooth flow of activities. These could be in the form of finance which may marginalize H and S, transportation, material, labour and machines. In terms of design it may be the client�s ability to adequately brief the design team on what he / she intends to build. Contrary to this view, Chinyo and Akintoye (2008) cite Lerbinger (2006) who contends that organizations that engage with their stakeholders actively are more likely to succeed.


Belout and Gauvreau (2003) point out that it is important to define and communicate the project mission clearly during the planning stage. Further, it is also essential at this stage to fully grasp clients� needs and establish with them the project�s limits and priorities - expected quality standards; schedules risk acceptance; method of project management to be adopted; monitoring actors, and so on. The ability of the client to effectively brief the design team could avoid revision of drawing and reworks. Sheon et al. (2004) declare that current briefing practice is still considered by many researchers as inadequate and has many limitations. The Construction Industry Review Committee (2001) recommends that clients set out requirements of their projects clearly, systematically, and comprehensively. Further, Chan et al. (2004) identify clients� ability to brief as one of the human-related factors that affect the success of a construction project.

The accuracy of the briefing of the design team regarding the intention / purpose of buildings is directly proportional to the level of representation of the intention / purpose in the design. If intentions are not appropriately conveyed, it will affect the design and it implies that whatever is represented in the drawing is that which the contractor will build. Yu et al. (2006) highlight the problems associated with briefing as a lack of a comprehensive framework; lack of identification of client requirements; inadequate involvement of all the relevant parties of a project; inadequate communication between those involved in briefing and insufficient time allocated for the briefing. These are potential factors that could cause significant delays on project delivery. Mbachu and Nkado (2004) note that there is a need to grasp the needs of a client and provide satisfactory service in order to avoid undesirable consequences such as negative word-of-mouth, complaints, redress seeking, reduction of market share and profitability levels, and possible divestment from the industry. Cheug et al. (2000) declare that the extent to which a project is dispute-free from the client determines the measure of success of the project. Therefore the needs and expectation of clients should be known and met.


Phua (2005) concludes that good communication by clients with project team members is viewed as important to project performance. The ability of the client to contribute ideas to the design process may result in a design with no or limited errors. In the instance that the client does not have an understanding of the design process, the designer is left alone to work on the brief given to him by the client, which may not be comprehensive for a faultless design. Chan et al. (2004) assert that clients� ability to contribute to design affects the construction of projects.


Faridi and El-Sayegh (2006) and Dulaimi et al. (2005) identify slowness of the owner�s decision-making process as the third most influential factor out of forty-four factors causing delays in construction projects. Blisman et al. (2004) highlight the fact that client indecisiveness and non�uniformity negatively affect project delivery, which rank among the ten most influential factors within construction clients� multi�project environment. Chan et al. (2004) say that client� ability to make decisions affects construction projects. The extent to which the client can make authoritative decisions helps in avoiding delays in the delivery of projects. Clients that need to consult other associates with respect to making decisions may affect prompt delivery of projects. When this type of situation is encountered decisions that may affect the project negatively could be taken.


Stability of decisions is very crucial in the construction process. The changing of decisions may lead to, changing of designs, plans, rework, and material loss. Blismas et al. (2004) contend that client� indecisiveness is the second significant factor that influences project delivery in their findings. Furthermore, Abdel-Wahab et al. (2008) declare that changes made by clients contribute to the delay of projects. Citing Olomolaiye (1996), Koushki et al. (2005) add that change-orders as a result of changing selections contribute to delays.


Phua (2004) concludes that the factor that has the most influence on multi-firm project success is communication between project firms and clients. Muller and Turner (2005) assert that, through the implementation stage, the communication needs change from provision of data by the owner, to review, and acceptance of plans and deliverables, together with early warnings if the owner cannot fulfill his / her obligations stated in the project plan. Communication can occur in order to transfer an idea or contribute to decision-making. Phua (2005) asserts further that good communication with project team members is viewed as important to project performance at all levels. Chan et al. (2004) say that, clients� ability to contribute to the construction process affects the success of the project. The ability to contribute ideas in terms of changes required during construction as a result of changing taste to suit desire can impact either positively or negatively on the construction speed. Clients that embark on construction activities once in fifteen or twenty years may not have valuable ideas to contribute to the construction process and may affect delivery time negatively. Clients that embark on construction activities every other year may have valuable ideas to contribute to the construction process thereby affecting construction speed positively. Mathur et al. (2008) argue that the engagement of stakeholders within a project could link with the project decision-making process in order to explicitly affect key decisions.


According to Smit and de J Cronje (2002), planning involves a lot of steps before arriving at the test alternative plan. These include the following:

� Identify opportunities and threats;

� Formulate objectives;

� Make assumptions and draw-up plans of action accordingly;

� Identity alternative plans of action;

� Analyze and consider alternative plans of action;

� Choose a final plan;

� Draw up a budget, and

� Implement the plan.


It is often said that �failing to plan is planning to fail?. Due to this, the benefits associated with planning make it important for organizations to plan. Du Toit et al. (2007) enumerate these benefits as the following:

� Planning provides direction and helps managers as well as non-managers to focus on forward thinking;

� It creates a participatory work environment;

� It reduces the impact of change. In a turbulent environment, planning enables managers to anticipate change and to develop appropriate responses;

� It reduces the overlap of activities. When means and ends are clear, the overlapping activities and wasteful activities become obvious, and

� Planning sets the standards to facilitate control. Planning sets objectives, and in so doing it complements the control function. Controlling enables performance to be compared against the established objectives. If significant deviations occur, corrective steps can be taken. Without planning, control cannot take place.


Organizing is defined as the process of creating a structure for the business that will enable its people to work effectively towards its vision, mission and goals. The process involves determining how, where, by which, when and with what resources these tasks must be carried out to achieve the objectives of the organization.


The following steps are vital in organizing an organization. They include:

� Finding the necessary information;

� Identifying and analyzing activities;

� Grouping related tasks together;

� Dividing the workload according to resources;

� Allocating responsibilities and announcing an arrangement, and

� Obtaining the necessary resources and announcing arrangements.


Hsieh et al. (2004) determined that problems with design and planning are the major cause of change orders which lead to delays in the delivery of projects. Research indicates that poor drawings were considered to be another cause for low productivity. Design management is a tool which Bibby et al. (2006) propose corporations and managers use to increase project performance. It is a process that includes open forum presentations, a style that allows discussion of issues by all project team members and has the capacity to ensure a faultless design. Santoso et al. (2003) assessed risks in high-rise building construction in Jakarta and found that risks related to design and management are the most significant factors which affect construction performance.


Acharya et al. (2006) determined that ambiguous specifications are one of the six critical construction conflicting factors in the Korean context that affect project delivery time negatively. This refers to an item having double representation either in numerical value or in statement. For clarity and smooth flow of work, designs should be checked more than once before they reach the contractor. It is also advised that designs should be checked by the contractor for clarity and to avoid ambiguity upon receiving the award. If these exercises are not conducted, it may lead to delays. Oyedele and Tham (2006) conclude that architects should improve on design quality so as to satisfy their clients� requirements and ensure successful project delivery as a whole.


According to Yakubu and Sun (2009), design change(s) is the most influential factor inhibiting the delivery of projects on time in the United Kingdom construction industry from the perspective of the contractor and the consultants. Walker and Shen (2002) declare that a delay in design documentation was ranked the second most influencing factor that negatively affects project delivery. Time should not be wasted in the process of issuing revised drawings. The joint contract tribunal (JCT) specifies that revision of drawings should not take more than three days after which the contractor can claim for extension of time. This could increase the final project cost to the disadvantage of the client, which the client might not want to incur. Revisions of designs should be done promptly.


Andi and Minato (2003) say that poor design and documentation quality negatively affect the construction process. Alaghbari et al. (2007) identify incomplete documents as one of the top ten factors causing delay in the delivery of projects in the Malaysian construction industry. Missing information interrupts the smooth flow of work. Contractors are employed to build in such a way that they adhere to design and specification. Assumptions should not be made while constructing, therefore missing information should be brought to the notice of the designer and a quick response should be given to address this.


Walker and Shen (2002) say that mistakes in design form part of the contractor-related factors which were ranked second in contributing to delays in the delivery of projects. Acharya et al. (2006) determined that design errors are one of the six critical construction conflicting factors in the Korean context. Dimensional inaccuracies are to be brought to the notice of designers and these should be resolved promptly, to avoid delays in the delivery of project. JBCC clause 17.1.2 bestows the responsibility on the principal agent to issue the contractor instructions with regards to the rectification of discrepancies, errors in description or omission in contract documents other than this document.


Out of forty-four causes of delays identified by Faridi and El-sayegh (2006) in the United Arab Emirates, preparation and approval of drawings is the most influential. Delay in the release of shop drawings could affect speedy completion of work sections. Shop drawings should be delivered to the contractor whenever the need arises, with no delays. Clause 32.5.1 of the JBCC states that the failure to issue or the late issue of a contract instruction following a request from the contractor entitles the contractor to claim for the expense in loss incurred, having notified the principal agent within forty working days from becoming aware or from when he / she ought reasonably to have become aware of such expense and loss.


Santoso et al. (2003) studied risk in high-rise building construction in Jakarta and determined that management and design are the most significant factors affecting construction performance. The study by Ponpeng and Liston (2003) of contractor ability criteria determined, a contractor�s quality management system is an important factor affecting a contractor�s delivery of a project within schedule.


Planning tool is an aid for an effective, smooth flow and control of works during the construction phase. Arditi and Mohammadi (2002) conclude that timeliness, which is completion of the contract on the scheduled date, and accuracy, which is the ability to provide the right service the first time with a minimum amount of rework, are measures of a contractor�s quality performance creditability that eliminate or minimize delays.


A project having to repeat one of its activities, it may mean, that it will take longer time before its completion. Belout and Gauvreau (2003) declare that trouble-shooting was identified as the second highest factor that explains project success in the execution stage in their study. When problems occur while the project is being executed, it is important that the project team quickly identify the source and extent of the trouble and solve it. An analysis of construction methods is the consideration of the various techniques to carry out work against the volume and complexity of work, which will result in timeliness, cost effectiveness, quality product, and safety. Failure to do this might result in mistakes and rework. Proverb and Holt (2000) declare that construction methods adopted in the procurement of a project significantly relate to construction time performance. Tam et al. (2001) evaluated three construction methods and their performance on productivity, the use of new technology as compared with the traditional conventional method which entailed timber forms. The use of new technology was discovered to be the most effective in shortening construction time.


Koushki and Kartam (2004) determined that late delivery and damaged materials to site cause project delays, for instance, if there is not a particular material on site such as cement. The late delivery of material will result in not meeting schedule targets. Damage of materials resulting from handling will necessitate change. The process it will take for replacement / purchase might lead to delays. Pertula et al. (2003) report that a total of 2 945 disability days were experienced on a project over a period of eighteen months due to accidents resulting from materials handling on site. This has a negative impact on the delivery of the project on time, with respect to machine requirements. A schedule of movement of heavy machines should be made in order to maximize the cost of hiring and movement to and from the site. Prior to a machine arriving on site the specific quantity of work to be done must have been identified. This will eliminate the situation of having the machine standing idle while work is not completed. Koushki and Kartam (2004) declare that poor planning, equipment breakdown and improper equipment lead to delays in the project.


According to Fox et al. (2003), to realize building designs, practitioners with expert knowledge should be employed in assessing the capability of construction processes. This will aid the comparison of construction methods of contractors against its adequacy regarding the project technology demand. On awarding the contract, the architect or the project manager requests the contractor to provide a work schedule and construction method statement. These explain the activities of work from site clearance to handing over of the site to the client. In other words, specific duration of activities fixed thereon and construction methods are identified. There are several planning tools employed in doing this. Among these are bar charts, the CPM, the S-curves as well as others, but the most commonly used planning tools are the bar chart and the CPM. These tools are used in achieving and maintaining workflow.


Lee et al. (2004) cite Lantelme and Formoso (2000) who conclude that measurement-managed companies have shown better performance compared to their non-measurement counterparts. In order to measure the performance of a project, tools such as the CPM and bar chart are developed to monitor work status. In situations where the project is not performing as planned, areas of weakness are identified and improved on for the achievement of overall goals. Pongpeng and Liston (2002) identify project monitoring as one of the five most important criteria for contractors? ability to perform.


If a project has to repeat one of its activities, it may take longer. There may be a multiple effect of this problem on activities, which may later lead to stagnation of works on site. These problems are identified by the daily progress record maintained on site. Where there is a lag, problems leading to it are identified. This is responding to a problem. When problems are identified, they are addressed. This implies remedying the situation and sorting out the problems. Once these are solved, the project is restored into full operation. This method employed in solving a problem could be applied to similar problems and where the project is performing well the method adopted in achieving such success should be documented and used repeatedly. Dainty et al. (2004) state that for a project to succeed, there are some qualities the project manager must possess. Among these are analytical thinking power, information seeking and initiative. These will enhance problem-solving on site. Scott-Young and Samson (2007) conclude that there is a direct and positive relationship between effective team problem�solving and project outcomes.


Tam et al. (2002) declare that site layout planning assists in minimizing the travelling time and movement costs of plant, labour and materials, activity interference during construction work and site accidents. Chan et al. (2004) state that the coordinating skills of the project team leader affects the construction of a project. Kazaz and Ulubeyli (2003) are of the view that assignment decisions of resources such as labour, equipment and materials control the overall duration and cost of a project. Additionally, a good inventory system must be put in place for recording materials on site for each section, for example, concreting, carpentry, reinforcement works and mechanical and electrical work. The materials movement schedule should be developed alongside the work schedule sheet. This will afford effective coordination of resources with respect to materials in stock, materials needed and ordering dates. Together these will ensure a smooth flow of activity and timely delivery of the project. Jha and Iyer (2005) maintain that coordination among project participants and resources positively influence the delivery of projects.


Bassioni et al. (2005) say that the involvement of leaders in ensuring that management systems are developed for operations is an important performance factor for success. For an organization to function effectively there should be an organogram showing the hierarchy of authorities and the various departments in the organization. Duties and responsibilities are spelt out to each department which assists with accountability.


Timely inspection is of great importance to ensure effective operation, quality of material and timely progress of the project schedule. Subsequent activities on a construction schedule may not start until the required inspection of preceding tasks has been completed. Project managers and inspectors who certify construction works are likely to be the major cause of delay in construction delivery. Progress may be delayed and productivity reduced when sections of works are inspected late. This implies the prioritizing of duty by consultants.


Historical research concerns itself with the meaning of events. According to Leedy et al. (2005), history consists of nothing more than an ever-flowing stream of events and the continuing changes in human life and its institutions. These comprise, inter alia, language, customs, philosophies, religious art, and architecture. This kind of research tries to draw inferences from this maelstrom, by considering the currents and counter-currents of present and past events, and searching for the pattern that ties them all together. The major distinction between historical research and historical narrative is the interpretation of the facts, relative to historical research, while the latter tends to organize facts into a sequence, usually chronological. Historical research is largely a qualitative endeavour: often it makes use of quantitative data as well. It is a blend of the two methodologies.


Leedy et al. (2005) identify four types of historical research. They are research based on searching for roots, historical time, space, and conceptual research.


The search for roots is known as ex-post facts research. This kind of research tries to account for phenomena such as the creation of the universe. Questions such as: where did it come from and how did it begin; characterizes this type of research.

Historical time researches take into consideration a period or space of time. It recognizes a series of events placed along a time continuum

Historical space research takes into consideration events that occurred in a particular place over a period of time. It has a space dimension. Furthermore it attempts to answer the questions relating to where and when events occurred.


This type of research is concerned with the origin, development and influence of ideas and concepts. This type of research can influence the course of history as events and people do. The idea of democracy was born in Greece and its development coincided with major events of the Greco�Roman world, the Middle Ages and modern times. Over a space of time the concept of democracy can only be found in its purest form in New England town meeting. The aforementioned presents how ideas originate, the stages of development they undergo, and what has become of the idea. Further examples of ideas that developed over a space of time are capitalism, socialism, rationalism, individualism, communism, utopianism, to name a few.


In any study researchers place a high value on first-hand accounts and original artefacts. The data sources for this type of research are newspaper clippings, original memos, diary entries, eyewitness accounts, and relevant objects. From these sources, data is gathered and coherent meaning established.


There are two types of data. These include:

Primary, and

Secondary data.


The primary data used in the study was acquired by surveying existing literature regarding the causes of project delivery delays. This process marked the development of the framework of the study, after which two questionnaires were designed for data gathering. Seventy-six factors that cause project delay were identified and categorized into fourteen major headings. A pilot survey was conducted and from the result of the study the categorized problems were reduced to twelve. These twelve problems were deemed to have more significant influences on project delivery time. Principally, the East Cape Master Builders Association and members of the South African Institute of Architectural Technologists were surveyed.


The secondary data used in this research were obtained from various South African and international sources, inter alia, journal and conference papers, articles, books, theses and the internet. The search for information was undertaken in the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University (NMMU) library. The following data bases were searched for information:



Sabinet on-line, and

Science direct.


Two categories of respondents were identified at the data gathering stage. These are:

Private, and

Public sector respondents.

The private sector consists of respondents from the South African Institute of Architecture (SAIA), the Association of South African Quantity Surveyors (ASAQS), the South African Property Owners Association (SAPOA), the Eastern Cape Department of Public Works, the Metro Bay Municipality, and CESA. Stemming from the fact that

building construction technology processes in South Africa are the same, four provinces were selected to represent the entire country as a sample for the study. These include the Eastern Cape (as a proxy), Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, and Western Cape.


The composition of the public sector sample frame is presented in Table 2:

Table 2: Composition of the public sectors sample frame

Composition Number

Department of Public Works 5

Department of Housing 26

The composition of the private sector sample frame is presented in Table 3:

Table 3: Composition of the private sectors sample frame

Composition Number

SAIA 1149

MBA 320




The truth. Leedy et al. (2005) advise that researchers should endeavour to maximize the sample size and provide the following guidelines for selecting a sample size:

For small populations with fewer than 100 people or other units, there is little point in sampling, survey the entire population;

If the population size is around 500, 50% of the population should be sampled;

If the population size is around 1 500, 20% should be sampled, and

Beyond a certain point (at about 5 000 units or more), the population size is almost irrelevant and a sample size of 400 should be adequate.

Krejcie and Morgan (1970) developed a more scientific method of calculating the sample size. They developed a table of sample sizes (see appendix) based on a formula for determining sample size published by the research division of the National Education Association. The authors created this table for ease of use and to facilitate research. The formula used to determine the sample size is as follows:

S = X2NP(1-P) / d2(N-1) + X2P(1-P)

S = The required sample size

X2 = The table value of chi-square for 1 degree of freedom at the confidence level of 3.841.

N = The population size

P = Population proportion assumed to be .50 which provides the maximum sample size

D = The degree of accuracy expressed. In this case, 0.05 was used.

Krejcie and Morgan (1970) say that when using this formula, it will be observed that, as the population increases, the sample size increases at a diminishing rate, plateaus and eventually remains constant.


19.1. SAMPLE

A sample in research implies the study of a sub-set of a population of interest. The researcher can use the results obtained from the sample to make generalisations about the entire population. The only condition for this kind of generalisation is that the sample is truly a representative of the population.


Leedy et al. (2005) identify two major sampling approaches:

Probability, and

Non-probability sampling approaches.

Probability sampling is that type which allows each segment of the population to be represented in the sample. In this case, the samples are chosen from the larger population by a process known as random selection. This is a process that allows each member of the population to have an equal chance of being selected.

The various sampling techniques employed in the selection of a probability sample are simple random, stratified random, systematic, and cluster sampling.

Simple random sampling allows the sample to be chosen by simple random selection whereby every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected.

Stratified random sampling occurs in populations which consist of different strata or groups. In order to have equal representation, the researcher selects samples equally from each one of the strata or group.

Cluster sampling, on the other hand, sub-divides an expansive area into smaller units. A country could be sub-divided into regions and further into towns. The clusters must be as similar to one another as possible, with each cluster containing an equally heterogeneous mix of individuals. A subset of the identified clusters is randomly selected. The geographical areas surveyed are Free State, the Eastern Cape, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, the Western Cape, the Boland and Pretoria for the MBAs. Bloemfontein and Boland were excluded in the survey of other populations.

In addition, the respondents for the study have undergone training in the built environment, with specified syllabus, purpose and design. These consist of architects, builders, quantity surveyors, and structural engineers. Respondents therefore represent the different areas of discipline.


In the case of non-probability sampling, individual elements of the population are not equally represented and members of the population have little or no chance of being sampled.


The main characteristic of the simple stratified random sampling design is that all the strata of the population are essentially equal in size. Proportional stratified sampling is characterized by a population that contains definite strata that appear in different proportions within the population. Therefore a sampling option that will not disadvantage any strata is chosen for the selection of sizes. This implies that each member of each stratum has an equal opportunity of being selected. Selection of sample size is done proportionately (Leedy et al., 2005).

Systematic sampling is a sampling technique that allows a researcher to select a sample size in sequence. A list of units is made from a population of interest. Every tenth unit on the list is then selected and reconciled with the list to obtain the name of firm / persons / object to be surveyed.


According to Lemon et al. (2004), South Africa is divided into nine administrative provinces:

Eastern Cape;

Free State;





North West;

Northern Cape, and

Western Cape.

The sample stratum and selection of sample size are discussed together. They were discussed based on the various professionals in the industry.

Sample one - Architects

All architects in the country cannot be surveyed, because they constitute a very large sample size, based on the division of the country as described above. In order to achieve fair representation, architectural institutes in the Eastern Cape, Western Cape, Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal were chosen. These are also provinces in which construction activity is high or on the average.

The sizes of each sample stratum within the total population for architects are represented in Table 4:

Table 4: Architects sample size

Provinces Number

Eastern Cape 133

Western Cape 347

Gauteng 315

KwaZulu-Natal 210

Pretoria 164

was made and pieces of paper numbered one to the number equivalent to the number of the sample size were folded, placed in the box and shaken together. From this the total number of the sample size was drawn. Then it was reconciled with the name on the list of each group and an e-mail was sent to these organizations. Tables 5 � 9 present the sample sizes for the various institutes.

Table 5: Cape Institute of Architects sample

Alphabetic Group Formula Sample Size

A to B 65 x 380/1456 17

C to E 40 x 380/1456 10

E to J 82x 380/1456 21

K to M 65 x 380/1456 17

N to P 22 x 380/1456 6

Q to T 56 x 380/1456 15

U to Z 17 x 380/1456 4

Total 90

The same process was repeated in the selection of the sample size for all the chapters of the SAIA. Therefore Tables 3 to 6 represent their sample sizes.

Table 6: Gauteng Institute of Architects sample

Alphabetic group Formula Sample size

A to B 47 x 380/1456 12

C to E 41 x 380/1456 11

E to J 59x 380/1456 15

K to M 63 x 380/1456 16

N to P 31 x 380/1456 8

Q to T 60 x 380/1456 16

U to Z 14 x 380/1456 4

Total 82

Table 7: KwaZulu-Natal Institute of Architects sample

Alphabetic group Formula Sample size

A to B 35 x 380/1456 9

C to E 35 x 380/1456 9

E to J 32x 380/1456 8

K to M 38 x 380/1456 10

N to P 19 x 380/1456 5

Q to T 37 x 380/1456 12

U to Z 14 x 380/1456 4

Total 57

Table 8: Pretoria Institute of Architects sample

Alphabetic group Formula Sample size

A to B 34 x 380/1456 9

C to E 23 x 380/1456 6

E to J 31x 380/1456 8

K to M 24 x 380/1456 6

N to P 12 x 380/1456 3

Q to T 27 x 380/1456 7

U to Z 13 x 380/1456 3

Total 42

Table 9: Eastern Cape Institute of Architects sample

Alphabetic group Formula Sample size

A to B 68 x 380/1456 18

C to E 84 x 380/1456 22

E to J 65x 380/1456 17

K to M 73 x 380/1456 19

N to P 45 x 380/1456 12

Q to T 60 x 380/1456 16

U to Z 24 x 380/1456 6

Total 110


The Microsoft Excel computer data package for systematic selection was the second means employed in the selection of samples. Once the programme is opened, the menu �data? is clicked and it will display another menu from which �data analysis? is clicked. A dialogue box titled �data analyses? will be prompted. In this box are displays of the various analysis tools available, which random number generation was clicked. A dialogue box titled �Random Number Generation? will be prompted and in this box a person is required to capture relevant information regarding the samples and click �OK.? The relevant information to be captured is:

Number of variables;

Number of random numbers;

Distribution: select patterned, and

Value and probability input range and click �OK?.

The required sample numbers will be displayed on a spread-sheet. Highlight the numbers on the Excel spread-sheet and randomize the figures to one decimal number figure to eliminate the decimal points. When this is completed, the numbers must be reconciled accordingly to the corresponding names of firms.

Apart from the architects and those that require no sampling, all other respondents were sampled using electronic methods.

Sampling two � Quantity Surveying

In selecting quantity surveying firms, the lists provided on the Internet by the ASAQS were used. A total of five chapters were selected as representative of the nation. These chapters include the Eastern Cape, Gauteng North and South, KwaZulu-Natal, and Western Cape. A standard unit of population (100) was used as a sample size as suggested by Leedy et al. (2005). In the chapters where organizations? populations are more than 100, the selection of sample size was done electronically and where it is less, the entire population was surveyed.

Based on the above, Table 10 below reveals the summary of sample sizes of Quantity Surveyors:

Table 10: Association of South African Quantity Surveyors sample

Chapter Population Sample size Failed e-mail Actual sample size

Gauteng North 135 100 15 85

Gauteng South 95 95 10 85

Eastern Cape 78 78 4 74

KwaZulu-Natal 131 100 11 89

Western Cape 132 100 13 87

Total 420

Sampling 3 � Master Builders

The sample group of the Master Builders Associations (MBAs) consists of:

Free State;

East Cape;


KwaZulu-Natal, and

Western Cape.

The same principles employed in the selection of the Quantity Surveyors? sample were used for the other stakeholders. They include the MBAs, clients and structural engineers. Questionnaires were mailed to the master builders and clients. The quantity surveyors and structural engineers were sent the questionnaire via e-mail. Details of the selection are presented in Tables 11 �

Table 11: Sample size of master builders association

Province Population Sample size Returned mails Actual sample size

Bloemfontein 55 55 7 48

Eastern Cape 103 103 11 92

Gauteng 135 100 12 88

Pretoria 122 100 4 96

KwaZulu-Natal 115 100 9 91

Western Cape 106 106 8 98

Table 12: Sample size of clients

South African Property Owners Association (SAPOA) Population Sample size Returned mails Actual sample size

161 100 9 91

Table 13: Sample size of structural engineers

Province Population Sample size Failed mails Actual sample size

Eastern Cape 44 44 5 39

Phase 2 sampling and sample selection

The sampling technique employs a process known as simple random sampling to engender proper proportions. The list of members provided on the web site of the ASAQS was used in selecting members electronically. Table 14 reveals the details:

Table 14: Quantity surveyors� sample size

Province Population Sample size Failed e-mails

Eastern Cape 78 5 0

Gauteng North 135 5 0

Gauteng South 95 5 0

KwaZulu-Natal 131 5 0

Western Cape 132 5 0


Based on the responses obtained from the administration of the Phase 2 Questionnaires, a convenience sampling technique was employed with the view of increasing responses and data for the study. The Department of Public Works and the Department of Housing in the Eastern Cape and Coega were those in this category. The questionnaire was administered via e-mail to all the respondents. Tables 15 � 18 present details of the response rates:

Table 15: Summary of questionnaire administration to Department of Housing (Phase 1 Questionnaire)

City Population Sample size Failed e-mails

Port Elizabeth 26 25 0

Table 16: Summary of questionnaire administration to Department of Housing (Phase 2 Questionnaire)

City Population Sample size Failed e- mails

Port Elizabeth 1 1 0

Table 17: Summary of questionnaire administration to Department of Public Works (Phase 1 Questionnaire)

City Population Sample size Failed mails

Port Elizabeth 2 2 0

Mthatha 2 2 0

Kokstad 1 1 0

Table 18: Summary of questionnaire administration to Department of Public Works (Phase 2 Questionnaire)

City Population Sampled size Failed mails

Port Elizabeth 1 1 0

Mthatha 1 1 0

Kokstad 1 1 0

One each of both the Phase 1 and 2 Questionnaires were administered to respondents in Coega.


The study used two questionnaire types for data gathering, namely the questionnaire survey and the historical survey.


Based on the problem categorization presented in Table 2 which formed the basic framework for the study, the associated sub-problems to each main problem were identified from the survey of the literature. They were compiled and structured into questions that addressed the issue of delivery of projects to time. A total of seventy six sub-problems were identified that were grouped into the main problem. These form the framework of this study. The groupings of the main problems include:

� Client understanding of the design, procurement, and construction processes;

� Quality of management during design;

� Quality of management during construction;

� Motivation of staff;

� Site ground conditions;

� Site access;

� Constructability of design;

� Management style;

� Management techniques used for planning and control;

� Physical environmental conditions;

� Economic policy, and

� Socio-political conditions.


The results of the item analysis conducted to determine the reliability of the summated scores calculated for the various factor categories are reported in this section. The Item analysis was conducted for the seventy-six items (statements) in the questionnaire that were summated into scores for the 12 factor categories. For each factor Cronbach?s coefficient a was calculated and a factor analysis specifying a one factor model was conducted.


Tests for the internal reliability of the factors in each category were conducted by determining their Cronbach?s coefficient a value. Table 19 presents the results:

Table 19: Cronbach�s coefficient a value for all factor categories

Factor category Cronbach�s a

Clients? understanding of design, procurement and construction processes .93

Quality of management during design .90

Quality of management during construction .87

Constructability of design .87

Planning and control tools .69

Management style .91

Types of motivation .89

Site ground conditions .92

Site access conditions .83

Physical environmental factors .81

Economic policy .84

Socio-political conditions .83

Cronbach?s a value for all factor categories were > .70, with the exemption of one, which is regarded as adequate proof of internal consistency. It should be noted that Cronbach?s a values of 0.50 to 0.70 are acceptable.


Factor analysis was conducted to test the agreement between factors in each category. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 20.

Table 20: Summary of factor analysis conducted for item analysis

Factor: Clients� understanding of the design, procurement and construction processes (Percentage variance explained = 75.6%)


Understanding the project�s constraints .770

Ability to effectively brief the design team .889

Ability to contribute ideas to the design process .888

Ability to quickly make authoritative decisions .889

Stability of decisions .904

Ability to contribute ideas to the construction process .867

Factor: Quality of management during design (Percentage variance explained = 72.3%)


Conflicting design information .814

Timeliness of revised drawings .865

Missing information .876

Dimensional inaccuracies .864

Expediting shop drawings .830

Factor: Quality of management during construction (Percentage variance explained = 53.8%)


Forecasted planning date, e.g. activity duration, resource quantities required, etc. .776

Analyzing construction methods .585

Analyzing resource movement to and on site .623

Analyzing of work sequencing to achieve and maintain workflow .819

Monitoring and updating plans to appropriately reflect work status .782

Responding to recover from problems or taking advantage of opportunities presented .817

Effectively coordinating resources .749

Developing an appropriate organizational structure to maintain workflow .681

Factor: Constructability of design

(Percentage variance explained = 43.9%) Loadings

Scope of site fabrication .682

Complexity of off-site fabricated components .712

Appropriateness of design tolerances .623

Appropriateness of working space. Its impact on smooth activity workflow and sequencing .613

Implication upon trades co-ordination 655

Impact of materials storage and movement .673

Extent of grouping work .707

Extent of modular dimensions in design .669

Knowledge of performance of materials and components .647

Effective constructability review of design .596

Participation in site inspection and control .873

Factor: Techniques for planning and control

(Percentage variance explained = 76.2%) Loadings

Critical path methods .873

Bar chart .872

Factor: Management style

(Percentage variance explained = 61.3%) Loadings

Specified goals people are to accomplish .785

Organize the work situation for people .801

Set time lines .802

Provided specific direction .796

Required regular reporting on progress .757

Provided support and encouragement .789

Involved team members through discussion of work .842

Sought people�s opinion and concerns .682

Factor: Motivation of workers�

(Percentage variance explained = 58.3%) Loadings

Pay an allowance .671

Achievement from meeting complex challenges .770

Job security .750

A sense of belonging and identification with the project team .789

Recognition (monitoring or kudos) of contribution made .778

Opportunity to extend skills and experience, i.e. learning .822

Equitable rewards relative to other�s input to the project 768

Exercise of power .680

Opportunity for career advancement � i.e. for future benefit .826

Factor: Site ground conditions

(Percentage variance explained = 64.4%) Loadings

Nature of demolition work .752

Nature of restoration work .798

Structural stability of ground .752

Extent of ground contamination .885

Extent of archaeological finds .769

Impact of water table .800

Impact of underground services .793

Impact of underpinning existing structure .859

Factor: Site access conditions

(Percentage variance explained = 55.1%) Loadings

Proximity to required resources .551

Access to site entry / exit points .704

Congestion at site entry / exit points .835

Storage space at or near ground level .795

Storage space at upper levels .717

Requirement for restrictive hours .815

Factor: Physical environmental conditions

(Percentage variance explained = 64.2%) Loadings

Impact of natural hazards (fire, floods, etc.) .787

Local weather patterns on site .792

Ambient noise conditions .817

Ambient light conditions .809

Factor: Economic policy

(Percentage variance explained = 60.9%) Loadings

Materials availability .827

Equipment availability .909

Trades / Operatives availability .898

Supervision / Management of staff availability .878

Indirect impact of interest rates / inflation .474

Insolvencies and bankruptcies .585

Factor: Socio-political conditions

(Percentage variance explained = 74.6%) Loadings

Civil strife or riots .885

Influence of protest action groups .913

Disruption due to environment concerns (floor, fire, noise) .789

Based upon the factor analysis loadings obtained for factors, the majority are greater than 0.60, the specified loading for sample sizes of 85 - 99 (Hair et al., 2006). See appendix. There are some factors which have loadings a little lower than .60. These are analysing construction methods (.585), effective constructability review of design (.596) and the proximity to required resources (.551). It can be deemed that the items for all factor categories have good agreement. This means that the factors adequately describe these categories.