Al-Khalil, M I and Al-Ghafly, M A (1999) Important causes of delay in public utility projects in Saudi Arabia. Construction Management and Economics, 17(5), pp. 647-655. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
This study was conducted to determine the most important causes of delay in public utility projects, based on the frequency and severity of the causes. A survey of randomly selected samples of contractors, consultants, and owners was carried out to assess the frequency of occurrence and the severity of impact of sixty potential delay causes. A frequency index and a severity index were determined for each cause. An importance index for each cause was then computed as the product of the frequency and severity indices. The results showed that the three panics surveyed generally agree on the importance ranking of delay causes. The causes were grouped also into six major categories of delay. The analysis showed lack of agreement among the parties on the ranking of the major categories of delay.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | claims; delay; Saudi arabia; time; utility projects |
| Index terms: | panic, survey, public utility, owner, Saudi Arabia, severity index, causes of delay |
| Subjects: | Geography, sociology, project controls, environmental hazards, behavioral psychology, infrastructure and transport systems, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Time Control, Urban Studies, Stakeholder Management, Sustainability, Geographical Context, Research Practice |
| 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