Aminorlah, A I; Rahim, N A; Mohamed, Z and Mazlan, A N (2023) Critical delay factors in typical physical projects: The case of the ministry of home affairs in Malaysia. Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 28(2), pp. 57-79. ISSN 1823-6499
Abstract
In Malaysia, public projects have been consistently reported as dilapidated and delayed, causing the government to bear financial losses. Furthermore, the purposes of the projects have not been fully achieved, thus affecting the public interest. This study examined the critical contributing factors to the delay in implementing physical projects in the Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA). The scope involved the physical construction projects of the Immigration Department of Malaysia’s offices and premises in Malaysia, which was mandated in the 11th Malaysia Plan. A total of 105 respondents, including contractors, consultants, endusers and clients, participated in a survey on the factors and effects of physical project delay. The data were analysed using the relative importance index (RII) and Spearman’s correlation to identify the most critical delay factors and their association with delay effects. A total of 38 delay factors were identified, with contractor-related factors being the most critical, followed by consultant-related, client-related and other factors. These delay factors were found to be positively correlated with the effects of delay, including time and cost overrun, quality, litigation and arbitration, and abandonment.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | delay; government projects |
| Index terms: | arbitration, cost overrun, project delay, construction project, abandonment, public project, public interest, government project, Malaysia, litigation, relative importance index, survey |
| Subjects: | infrastructure engineering, political science, dispute resolution, production management, financial and cost management, data collection methods, completion, Geography, project controls, risk assessment, administrative law |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Legal Issues, Time Control, Geographical Context, Project Management, Risk Management, Cost Management, Governance |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here