National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) International Program in Civil Engineering and Management (ICEM) Masters Thesis

Linkage between Scheduling Process Maturity and Schedule Performance of Construction Projects

Student: Jos Mari Divas N66987123

Advisor: Andrew S. Chang July, 2011

ABSTRACT

Delays are often found in construction projects in spite of numerous research aimed at improving schedule performance. Studies address the factors affecting

project success and establish good practices to help in scheduling process. Some argue the schedule problems are lack of support between management and project participants, and the misuse of the scheduling methods and techniques, while others state that is because of an existing gap between theory and practice. This research studies the relationship between scheduling process maturity and schedule performance. It first reviews the factors that are of critical influence on schedule performance. A questionnaire was designed based on four parts composed of these schedule factors: schedule theory, management theory, project participants and project environment. The questionnaire was sent out and collected 93 sets of data from owners, consultants and contractors in both Belize and Taiwan. The analysis results reveal the views of project participants regarding various scheduling aspects. Contractors replies have a better linkage with schedule

performance. Basic scheduling processes are most frequently and well used by project participants while having a moderate relationship with schedule performance. The scheduling formality of the project participants has a moderate relationship with project delays. Advance scheduling processes are seldom used because they are not familiar to participants are seldom practiced.

Keywords: Schedule theory, project management, schedule management, scheduling process, schedule performance. i

ii

93

iii

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would firstly like to give praise to Jehovah god for patience, guidance and wisdom. Secondly, thanks to the International Cooperation and Development Fund (ICDF) for the opportunity to study in Taiwan at National Cheng Kung University. My

appreciation also goes to the faculty at Civil Engineering and Management, not forgetting my thesis advisor, Professor Andrew Chang, for his kind guidance throughout the investigation process. I would also like to extend my gratitude to my

classmates for helping with Chinese lessons. I also want to thank my family and loved ones for the unconditional support specially my mother, Gloria Estela Flores.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENT

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................... I ........................................................................................................................ III ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................... V TABLE OF CONTENT .......................................................................................... VII LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................... IX LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. X CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................ 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 Motivation ............................................................................................... 2 Research Objectives ................................................................................. 3 Research Scope and Limitation ................................................................ 4 Schedule Theory .................................................................................... 10 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3 2.4.4 3.1 Planning, Scheduling and Control................................................ 10 Scheduling Methods and Techniques ........................................... 13 Project management .................................................................... 15 PM Process and Benchmarking ................................................... 16 Human Factors ............................................................................ 18 Skills, Training and Experience ................................................... 19 Owners Sophistication ................................................................ 20 Project Complexity ...................................................................... 20 Schedule Specification ................................................................ 22 Culture ........................................................................................ 23

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................... 9

Management Theory .............................................................................. 15

Project Participants Capabilities ............................................................. 18

Project Environment .............................................................................. 19

CHAPTER THREE FACTORS AFFECTING SCHEDULING PROCESS .............. 25 Scheduling Process Problems ................................................................. 25 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.2 Personnel..................................................................................... 26 Procedures................................................................................... 28 Problems in Developing Countries .............................................. 29

Initial Survey in Belize........................................................................... 32 vii

3.2.1 3.2.2

Preliminary Results ..................................................................... 33 Informalities in the Industry ........................................................ 36

CHAPTER FOUR SURVEYING SCHEDULE PRACTICE LEVELS AND RESULTS................................................................................................................ 39 4.1 Establishing Schedule Practice Levels .................................................... 39 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4 CHAPTER FIVE 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.2 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 6.1 6.2 Effort to establish the scheduling practice .................................... 39 Maturity Level Assignment ......................................................... 41 General Information .................................................................... 42 Project Environment .................................................................... 43 Scheduling Process ...................................................................... 44 Schedule Performance ................................................................. 45 General Information .................................................................... 47 Project Environment .................................................................... 51 Scheduling Process ...................................................................... 57 Schedule Performance ................................................................. 64 LINKAGE ANALYSIS OF SCHEDULING ASPECTS ............ 71 Relationships to be Identified ...................................................... 71 Regression and correlation analysis ............................................. 73 General Information-Schedule Process and Performance ............. 75 Project Environment Scheduling Process .................................. 78 Project Environment Schedule Performance ............................. 82 Scheduling Process Schedule Performance ............................... 85

Questionnaire Design ............................................................................. 42

Survey Process and Results .................................................................... 46

5.1 Linkage Strategy ......................................................................................... 71

Relationship Identification ..................................................................... 74

CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................ 89 Conclusions ........................................................................................... 89 Recommendations .................................................................................. 90 Initial Survey Questions about Scheduling Problems ................. 97

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 93 Appendix A: Appendix B: Questionnaire (English Version) ................................................... 98 Appendix C: Questionnaire ().............................................................. 101 Appendix C: Summary of Questionnaire Survey Results ................................ 104

viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 Respondents organizations........................................................................ 47 Table 4.2 Cost of scheduling as a percentage of overhead ........................................ 65 Table 5.1 Selected relationships analyzed................................................................. 74 Table 5.2 Organization, performance and years of experience .................................. 76 Table 5.3 Schedule as part of job.............................................................................. 77 Table 5.4 Source of knowledge, schedule processes and performance ...................... 78 Table 5.5 Project duration and scheduling processes ................................................ 79 Table 5.6 Owners sophistication and scheduling processes ..................................... 80 Table 5.7 Formality and schedule methods, tools and WBS...................................... 80 Table 5.8 Specification similarity and scheduling processes ..................................... 81 Table 5.9 Project duration, schedule performance and cost ....................................... 82 Table 5.10 Duration, planning, communication and time control .............................. 83 Table 5.11 Project complexity and schedule performance ......................................... 84 Table 5.12 Owners sophistication and cost spent on scheduling .............................. 84 Table 5.13 Project participants view and performance ............................................. 85 Table 5.14 Project specifications similarity and cost ................................................ 85 Table 5.15 Basic processes, performance, communication and time control ............. 86 Table 5.16 Advance processes, performance, communication and time control ........ 87

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1.1 Gap between schedule theory and practice .................................................... 3 Fig. 1.2 Research Process .......................................................................................... 6 Fig. 2.1 Schedule theory and practice aspects ............................................................ 9 Fig. 2.2 Planning and Scheduling Phases (AACE, 2006) ......................................... 11 Fig. 2.3 Scheduling Process (PMI, 2007) ................................................................. 11 Fig. 2.4 Scheduling model (PMI, 2007) ................................................................... 13 Fig. 2.5 Links among processes in a phase (PMBOK, 2004) .................................... 16 Fig. 2.6 Project processes and knowledge areas (PMBOK, 2004) ............................ 17 Fig. 2.7 Drivers of project complexity (Vidal and Marle, 2008) ............................... 21 Fig. 3.1 Scheduling process problems ...................................................................... 26 Fig. 3.2 Critical factors affecting project schedules .................................................. 33 Fig. 3.3 Most common scheduling tool .................................................................... 33 Fig. 3.4 Pre-job meeting for reviews of project scope .............................................. 34 Fig. 3.5 Project Participant that affect Project Schedule ........................................... 34 Fig. 3.6 Are delays inevitable .................................................................................. 35 Fig. 3.7 Schedulers as part of project ....................................................................... 35 Fig. 3.8 Attention to scheduling ............................................................................... 36 Fig. 3.9 Consensus of scheduling ............................................................................. 36 Fig. 3.10 Average update cycle ................................................................................ 36 Fig. 3.11 More challenging phase ............................................................................ 36 Fig. 4.1 Schedule Practice Levels ............................................................................ 41 Fig. 4.2 Respondent organizations ........................................................................... 47 Fig. 4.3 Relative size of organization ....................................................................... 48 Fig. 4.4 Positions of respondents ............................................................................. 49 Fig. 4.5 Number of years of experience ................................................................... 49 Fig. 4.6 Scheduling as part of the respondents job description ................................ 50 Fig. 4.7 Source of scheduling knowledge ................................................................. 51 Fig. 4.8 Average project duration ............................................................................. 52 Fig. 4.9 Project complexity increasing efforts to project schedules........................... 52 Fig. 4.10 Owners view on project schedule ............................................................. 53 Fig. 4.11 Owners knowledge and experience effect on project scheduling .............. 54 Fig. 4.12 Project participants view of project planning and scheduling ................... 55 Fig. 4.15 Specifications similarity for projects ......................................................... 56 Fig. 4.15 Schedule requirements affecting scheduling process ................................. 57 Fig. 4.16 Types of scheduling method often used ..................................................... 58 Fig. 4.17 Type of scheduling tool often used ............................................................ 59 Fig. 4.18 Use of WBS for planning .......................................................................... 59 Fig. 4.19 Use of sequencing relationship other than finish-start on PDM .............. 60 Fig. 4.20 Use of CPM techniques for project schedule ............................................. 61 Fig. 4.21 Use of resource loading on project schedules ............................................ 62 Fig. 4.22 Use of earned value analysis ..................................................................... 62 Fig. 4.23 Update cycle ............................................................................................. 63 Fig. 4.24 Calculations of time to complete upon project updating ......................... 64 Fig. 4.25 Average schedule delay ............................................................................. 64 x

Fig. 4.26 Cost spent toward project schedules .......................................................... 65 Fig. 4.27 Scheduling as a result of good planning .................................................... 66 Fig. 4.28 Opinions of project schedule improving communication ........................... 67 Fig. 4.29 Schedules being used for project time control ........................................... 68 Fig. 4.30 Overall satisfactions with current scheduling practice ............................... 68 Fig 5.1 Scheduling aspects tested for relationships .................................................. 72

xi

xii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

The need for scheduling in the project management can be argued from economical, technical and continued control points of view (Cole, 1991). Research has shown that where scheduling is fairly and consciously practiced throughout the project life cycle, the project results in favorable schedule and cost performance (Griffith, 2005). However, schedule practices are still deficient in the construction industry. One main reason is that there is a gap between the schedule theory and general practice. Project schedule is essentially a management tool used as basis for decision making by project participants. They reflect the schedule baseline and the subsequent changes as project progresses (Hartley, 1993). The main objective of schedules is to provide a roadmap that represents how and when the project will deliver the products defined in the project scope (PMI, 2007). Schedules provide a holistic view of the project while communicating the project scope both vertically and horizontally to all participants (PMI, 2007; Sappe, 2007). Schedules can be an effective management tool when good practices are utilized in the scheduling process. However this depends on competence and level of maturity of project participants. According to Kerzner (2009), maturity implies that the proper foundation of methods, tools, techniques, and processes exist. It generally comes from experience gained from exposure to several types of project.

1.1 Motivation Construction projects are getting more complex and difficult (Chan et al, 2004) hence the need for the use of project scheduling cannot be over emphasized. In spite of the vast amount of research related to scheduling, most research is related to advances in methodologies and techniques, while others research the factors affecting schedule performance (Herroleon, 2005). However, the scheduling process involved and

schedule performance are seldom linked. One of the most widely researched topics in project schedule performance is the concept of project success and the criteria to measure it (Iyer and Jha, 2006). Chan et al., (2004) categorized the factors affecting project success into four groups: project-related, procurement-related, project management and project

participant-related factors. In spite of all these efforts, projects are still suffering delays and going over budget. Dos Santos (2002) reveals that part of the problem stems from the partial application of theory, gap in knowledge amongst practitioners and the lack of support from the organizational structure. Additionally, high reliability cannot be achieved when the

schedule preparation process is separated from the project operational reality (Son and Rojas, 2011). Together this implies that the lack of linkage between applicable theory and current practices make schedule practice inefficient. Figure 1.1 shows the existence of a gap between the schedule theory and reality or practice. The theoretical aspects are scheduling and management theory, while the project participants and the project environments compose the reality of the schedule practice.

Fig. 1.1 Gap between schedule theory and practice

Efforts are being established to better bond and link these four aspects. The Project Management Institute (PMI) has added a college of scheduling as part of its organization (Galloway, 2006). This was done in an effort to standardize and achieve consistency in its application, requirements for schedule development, and use in the construction industry. PMI developed the Practice Standard for Scheduling Manual to regulate the scheduling practice (Galloway, 2006), in addition to providing the Project Management Book of Knowledge (PMBOK) which serves as a guide to project management.

1.2 Research Objectives The objective of this research is to analyze the linkage between scheduling process maturity and schedule performance in the construction industry. This research aims to find a linkage by evaluating responses from a survey in areas of project environment, scheduling process and schedule performance. As a secondary objective, by

assigning numeric levels to the responses it will be possible to define the general 3

schedule maturity level of the respondents. The responses level will indicate which areas are in more need of attention by the respondents. In return recommendation can be given on specific areas to increase the scheduling process maturity. Additionally the level maturity can be used to compare and rank the level of schedule maturity between the two countries and surveyed groups of project participants. The results of such research should enable individual to promote This will

schedule maturity and schedule consciousness in construction project.

enhance the scheduling process and consequently should improve performance. Though scheduling process maturity may be linked to schedule performance, this is limited to the commitment and competence of the scheduler and other direct project participants.

1.3 Research Scope and Limitation This research intends to surveys the scheduling practices of construction professionals in the Belize and Taiwan. The analysis and results provide insight of the scheduling process maturity currently being practiced. The research objective and method outline the process of this research and provides the objective aimed to achieve. During this investigation some limitations were encountered. Some of these limitations are: Sample size: though the number of total responses totals 93, this includes responses for both Belize and Taiwan. The responses are not even

distributed among owners, consultants, and contractor, and though the responses represent the scheduling practice in both countries, is some areas 4

the sample size is too small to find a significant relationship between the schedule process and the schedule performance. The results of this

research may be used only as reference material in identifying the level of maturity of Belize and Taiwan given the size of the sample size Lack of prior research: previously, linking the respondents capabilities with the schedule usage was researched. However linking the schedule process with schedule performance has not yet been researched, therefore this research is more exploratory, than explanatory. Methodology used in data collection: the main focus of this research is based on the questionnaire sent to Belize and to Taiwans project participants. A better approach would have being to self fill out the

questionnaire in face to face interviews this would probably have yielded better results.

1.4 Research Method and Process The main research methods used were an initial survey of semi-open question interviews and a questionnaire survey. The initial survey rendered a picture of the scheduling practices problems in Belize. The initial survey was followed by a Likert scaled questionnaire. The questionnaire was developed after schedule literature

review and analysis of the initial survey. This questionnaire was distributed to owners, consultants, and contractors both in Belize and Taiwan. The respondents selected

from Belize were all those listed in the Association of Professional Engineers of Belize. While in Taiwan the respondents that have certain relationships with NCKU

were asked to participate in this survey. The questionnaire was divided into four parts. 5 The first part addresses

background of the respondents: their job positions, types of organization, and sources of scheduling knowledge and whether scheduling is a major or minor job. The second covers the project environment in which scheduling is practiced. This includes the views of the project participants toward project planning and scheduling, project complexity and scheduling specifications issues. Part three addresses the scheduling process practiced in the industry. This includes the scheduling tools and methods in developing and controlling of schedules. The final part covers the of project schedule performance: the average delays, cost spent, and the overall satisfaction the respondent have of scheduling practice. This research process can be summarized into five general steps as seen in Figure 1.2.

Step 1

Literature review and initial survey Identification of the problems related to scheduling process Step 3 Questionnaire design and survey

Step 2

Step 4

Data analysis and linkage

Step 5

Conclusion and recommendation

Fig. 1.2 Research Process

1.5 Thesis Structure This thesis contains six chapters. Chapter 1 is the introduction of this thesis which contains the motivation, research objectives and research scope and limitation and research methodology. Chapter 2 contains a summary of the literature read and 6

reviewed for the development of this thesis. Chapter 3 presents an analysis of the general schedule problems encountered in Belize. Chapter 4 describes the questionnaire design and development. Chapter 5 presents the results and the efforts using correlation to establish a linkage between the scheduling process and the schedule performance. Finally, Chapter 6 presents the conclusion and

recommendation of this research.

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

Researches has shown that scheduling practice involves integration of scheduling methods and techniques, management procedures and guidelines, the experience of the project participants, and the skills to adapt to existing project environment. Figure 2.1 shows these schedule aspects.

Schedule aspects

Schedule Theory

Management Theory

Participant Capabilities

Project Environment

Planning, Scheduling Control Scheduling Methods and Techniques

Project Management Project Management Process and Bench Marking

Schedule Training

Owners Sophistication

Scheduling Experience

Project Complexity

Scheduling Skills

Scheduling Specification Culture

Fig. 2.1 Schedule theory and practice aspects

This chapter reviews the four aspects of schedule theory and practice as shown in Figure 2.1. Section 2.1 reviews schedule theory, Section 2.2 management

theory, Section 2.3 project participants, and Section 2.4 the Project-Related environment. 9

2.1 Schedule Theory Much has been written about project scheduling dealing with the mechanics of creating the schedule document itself (Hartley, 1993). This happened as extensive documentation requiring the need for planning and schedule methodologies (Cole, 1991). Scheduling has been around for sometimes. Henry Gantt first used bar chart as a mean to represent and sequence activities in early 1900s (Kerzner, 2009). Bar

charts are advantageous in that they are easily understood and represent a picture of the project in progress. When a project becomes larger and complex, the bar chart

has a disadvantage (Kerzner, 2009). This gives way to the CPM and PERT scheduling methods which were introduced in the late 1950s, and since then they have been vastly researched (Herroelen, 2005). Nonetheless, after their establishment, the

basic principles of project scheduling and control have gone unchanged for the major parts. However, their application in the construction industry has still not received 100% acceptance or consistency (Galloway, 2006).

2.1.1 Planning, Scheduling and Control The American Association of Cost Engineers (AACE, 2006) provides various definitions for scheduling. A time-sequence of activities and events that represent

and operating timetable, specifying the relative beginning and ending times of activities and the occurrence of events is a better suited definition. define Planning and Scheduling as per AACE (2006). Figure 2.2

10

Planning and Scheduling Phases

Planning

Schedule Development

Scheduling Control

Fig. 2.2 Planning and Scheduling Phases (AACE, 2006)

Scheduling commonly starts at the planning phase and continues to the execution as a control system. Furthermore it has its place and time after project

completion, usually in court when conflicts arise regarding the completion time (Gould and Joyce, 2009). Nonetheless for schedules to be rendered useable for

planning, executing, monitoring and communication, it should adhere to standard practices (PMI, 2007).

Project Start

Selecting Scheduling Method

Select Scheduling Model

Enter Project Scecific Data

Project Schedule

Instances of Project Schedules

Update and Status

Project Complete

Fig. 2.3 Scheduling Process (PMI, 2007) 11

As Figure 2.3 shows, the scheduling process includes selecting a scheduling method and tool, incorporating project specific data to develop a project specific project schedules (Fig. 2.4) (PMI, 2007) A schedule model should include five major processes in developing the project schedule (PMBOK, 2004): activity definition, activity sequencing, activity duration estimating, schedule development, and schedule control. Once developed,

the schedule model is regularly updated to reflect progress and changes, in areas such as scope of logic (PMI, 2007). Given that the construction industry is dynamic in nature, project planning cannot be consider as a straight-through process but rather it is best thought of as a planning cycle (Chan et al., 2004). Project planning starts early and continues Planning encompasses

throughout the various phases of the project life cycle.

defining the project objectives and determination of activities, selection of methods, resources and establishing responsibilities to accomplish completion as required (AACE, 2006). The methods, tools and techniques play important role in both the planning and scheduling phases. This selection depends on the project

characteristics, the participants involved and the environment (Hartley, 1993). The purpose of the schedule development is to implement the project schedule by converting the project plan into a logical arrangement and sequence of activities. During the schedule development phase, the project activities are refined, activity durations are determined, activity relationships and sequencing are detailed, and key milestones are confirmed. activities (AACE, 2006). Resource and cost may be included in the schedule Construction managers need to develop a schedule for

directing and controlling resources (Lu and Lam, 200). The PMBOK(2004) considers that schedule control is concerned with 12

influencing the factors that create schedule changes to ensure that changes are agreed upon, provided that the schedule has changed, when and as they occur. Nothing goes according to plan, and schedules have to be modified. Excessive change orders can cause changes in the planned schedules and, consequently, cause significant disruption to construction projects (Long et al., 2003). Thus the reason exists to keep a good control on project schedules. Proper planning and managing the actual changes

and control are usually among the top five factors required to avoid project delays (Tumi et al, 2009).

2.1.2 Scheduling Methods and Techniques Selecting scheduling methods occurs in the early part of the scheduling process. The scheduling methods provide the framework within which the scheduling model is developed with its specific tool and techniques applicable to manipulate the project information, as seen in Figure 2.4 (PMI, 2007).

Scheduling Method

Scheduling Tools

Schedule Model

Project Information

Output

Project Schedule

Fig. 2.4 Scheduling model (PMI, 2007) 13

The PMBOK (2004) states the usual and accepted scheduling method: the ADM (AOA) and PDM (AON). Hinze (2008) also mentions the LOB for repetitive

vertical and horizontal construction, and the bar chart as the popular method of sequencing activity at an initial stage of the scheduling process. Most efforts in research have been directed to the developing of methodologies and techniques for optimizing resources for single project. However practice has shown that many of these methodologies have proven to have limitations and in real cases project managers often find themselves managing up to four projects on average (Herroleon, 2005). The use of project scheduling techniques early in the project correlates with better project outcome (Griffith, 2005). These techniques are clearly defined during the schedule development stage. PMBOK (2004) mentioned the CPM, PERT and

GERT as mathematical analysis techniques to calculate the delivery dates of the activities. Thought some scheduling techniques are better than others, all have their

advantages and disadvantages (Kerzner, 2009). The scheduling tool is used to assemble the schedule model and provide means of adjusting various parameter and components that are typical during modeling process. The scheduling tool contains the scheduling components and the rules for relating and using the components to represent the process for completing a project. This is easily visualized by running scheduling software tool (PMI, 2007),

though other tools have the form of forms and templates (PMBOK, 2004).

14

2.2 Management Theory Modern project management appeared during World War II and was initially used for large military and construction projects (Vidal and Marle, 2008). Though its growth and acceptance has changed significantly since its appearance, these changes continue into the twenty-first century (Kerzner, 2009). 2.2.1 Project management Project involves doing something that has not being done before and is unique (PMBOK, 2004). Project management (PM) is the planning, organizing, directing,

and controlling of company resources for a relatively short-term objective that has been established to complete specific goals and objectives (Kerzner, 2009). PMBOK (2004) describes PM as the application of knowledge, skills, tools and techniques to project activities to meet the project requirements established. Others

perceive management by project as temporary organizations for the performance of complex processes, such as contracts for external clients (Garies and Huemann, 2000). PM has gone through three major development phases (Kerzner, 2009). Initially line manager used the concept of over-the-fence management to manage project. Executives began searching for new management techniques and

organizational structures that could be quickly adapted to a changing environment. Thereafter, companies in general consensus begun to realize that PM was a necessity not a choice. Projects are getting bigger and invariably more complex than ever (Baccarini, 1996), and the project team is required more than ever to more competent in PM. Corporate organizations are in favor of PM tools and practices that are well suited for 15

todays rapidly changing industry.

This however poses a question, how well is the To answer to this question the Project

organization using these tools and practices.

Management Process Maturity (PM2) model measures the relative PM maturity level of an organization (Kwak and Ibbs, 2002). 2.2.2 PM Process and Benchmarking PMBOK (2004) define the PM processes in five groups. - Initiating: authorizing the project or phase. - Planning: defining and refining objectives and selecting the best of the alternatives courses of action to attain the objectives that the project was undertaken to address. - Executing: coordinating people and other resources to carry out the plan. - Controlling: ensuring that project objectives are met by monitoring and measuring progress regularly to identify variance from plan so that corrective action can be taken when necessary. - Closing: formalizing acceptance of the project or phase and bringing it to an orderly end. PM processes are:

Initiating Processes

Planning Processes

Controlling Processes

Executing Processes

Closing Processes

Fig. 2.5 Links among processes in a phase (PMBOK, 2004) 16

Each of the five PM processes in Figure 2.5 includes nine knowledge areas as shown in Figure 2.6.

Fig. 2.6 Project processes and knowledge areas (PMBOK, 2004)

Despite the broad usage of PM tools and practices, organizations are often confused and uncertain about their current application of such tools. The five-level

PM2 model has become the basis to evaluate and position an organization current PM maturity and level of sophistication. The model motivates organizations and

people to accomplish higher and more sophisticated PM maturity by a systematic and incremental approach. It also provides and guides the necessary processes and It allows an organization to

requirements to achieve a higher PM maturity level.

determine the strength and weakness of current PM practices and focus on the weak PM practices to achieve higher PM maturity.

17

2.3 Project Participants Capabilities Project participants related problems that reflect the deficiency in project scheduling appears in various forms. The often cited problems or reasons for

project failure that are related to the participants are: inadequately trained and/or experience project managers; poor leadership; failure to adequately identify, document and track project requirement; poor planning process; inadequate or misused methods; inadequate communication, including project tracking and reporting (Herroelen, 2005). Therefore it is absolutely necessary that practitioner be competent, capable and possesses knowledge in management, this can only be achieved by training, possessing former experience and planning skills. 2.3.1 Human Factors There are few things more disheartening than to see an untouched, project schedule rolled in a corner or even being used as wall paper in a project office. This

is a usual occurrence of good intentions, but failed scheduling efforts (Hartley, 1993). Project participants must be proactive and committed to meet time and cost requirements as planned. In order to achieve project success the project team is

required to possess motivating, organizing and planning skills (Chan et al., 2009). Be able to coordinate resources and labor through continued involvement in the project. The adaptability of project participants to changes in the project plan is essential (Iyer and Jha, 2009). Iyer and Jha (2009) stated that a competent project manager has the technical and monitoring capabilities for effective leadership. Furthermore, the project

manager should be able to delegate authority and responsibilities to the project team and all other project participants involved in the project execution. 18 Project

managers competence is related to the skills, training and experience that he possesses. 2.3.2 Skills, Training and Experience Every participant has skills and knowledge that may be useful in developing the project plan (PMBOK, 2004). Given that all construction projects are different,

the use of skills play a significant role in identifying the aspects that add value to project scheduling (Chan et al., 2004). Iyer and Jha (2006) emphasized the

importance of project planning and suggested that project planning be carried out by skilled individuals. Many organizations acknowledge the need to improve the level of knowledge and skills in the construction community by providing training in the form of continuing education, workshops, lunch and other learning programs (Buziak, 2008). Training of highly regarded that PMI has recently added a college of scheduling (PMICOS) as part of it organization (Galloway, 2006b). The key to project success is to apply knowledge, experience and intuition to the project plan, and then attempt to execute according to plan (PMI, 2007). Chan et

al. (2004) mentioned that previous related experience is key to project success. Project participants experience is the backbone for the development of planning and scheduling (AACE, 2006).

2.4 Project Environment Project scope is widely accepted to be a contributing factor to the project success. It is thought to be a useful indicator of the expected project construction timeline. The attributes related to the project scope are: type of project, nature of 19

project, complexity, and project size (Chan et al., 2004). Construction projects are unique and temporary in nature and so their management. This uniqueness in project activities often requires consumption of initial time getting used to the project and the demands of the project scope. Though

the commitment of the all the project participants is essential to project completion, the sophistication (competence) of the owner weighs in project schedule success (Iyer and Jha, 2006).

2.4.1 Owners Sophistication Taking timely decisions, regular monitoring and feedback of the project progress is some of the characteristics of the owners competence (sophistication). It has

been found that in projects where the owners are technically competent and financially strong good project performance is achieved. On the other hand, incompetent owners proceed with projects without proper planning and are not able to recruit competent personnel to look after their interests (Iyer and Jha, 2006). Indecisiveness or slow decision by owners is also of great concern to both consultants and contractors in respect to timely completion of projects (Odeh and Battaineh, 2002). All this results in an unsuccessful outcome as far as schedule is concerned

(Iyer and Jha, 2006).

2.4.2 Project Complexity The construction process may be considered the most complex undertaking in any industry. The construction industry has displayed great difficulty in coping with the progressive increase in complexity of construction projects (Baccarini, 1996). 20

However complexity of project schedule is different from the complexity of the project itself. The complexity of the project schedule indicates high interconnection

between activities. When the resources needed for the project are widely spread, the project is considered complex. Project complexity can be an important criterion in

the selection of an appropriate project organization form. Conversely, the complexity of a project can affect the projects objectives of time, cost, and quality; it is frequently used as a criterion in the selection of a suitable project procurement arrangement (Nassar and Hegab, 2006). Project complexity can be characterized through some factors that can be classified into four categories as see in Figure 2.7. complexity factor. The project size is a project

Identifying the parameters that characterize the size of the A project system Factors

project system gives a first list of drivers of project complexity.

must be over a minimum critical size to be considered a complex system.

that are contemplated for the project size are: the duration of project, number of activities, resources, decisions, departments, investors, objectives, stakeholder and the largeness of scope.

Project Size Project Complexity Project Variety

Project interdependence

Elements of context

Fig. 2.7 Drivers of project complexity (Vidal and Marle, 2008) 21

Project variety relates closely to the diversity of the number of emergent properties (factors) and is a necessary condition for project complexity. The factors

underlined are: diversity of staff experience, and variety of financial resources, organizational interdependencies, organizational skills, stakeholders, resources manipulated, project components, technical skills and dependencies. Project interdependence is likely the greatest driver of project complexity. Components of complexity will depend on and influence each other, making it problematic in project scheduling. The following components make up the interdependencies within a project system: interdependencies between the components of the product, resource and raw material interdependencies, specification interdependencies, amongst others. Project complexity cannot be neither analyzed nor managed without considering the elements of project context. The project context cannot be

transferred from project to project with different institutional and cultural configuration. Elements of contextuality are: competition, culture, environment

complexity, local laws and regulation, public agenda and existing technological innovation. 2.4.3 Schedule Specification A critical step in the execution of a construction project is the selection of planning and scheduling specification clauses to be included in the construction contract (Ballast and Popesco, 2001). According the PMI (2007), a specification is a document that specifies, in a complete, precise, verifiable manner, the requirements, design, behavior, or other characteristics of a system, component, product, result or 22

service and, often the procedures for determining whether these provisions have been satisfied. Currently the scheduling specifications have become over burdened with the challenge of addressing the entire range of roles now encompassed by the activity of scheduling. As a result, scheduling specification advancements over the years have been extremely uneven, resulting in contract specification with schedule provision ranging from two sentences to two dozen pages. This lack of standards and wide variety of scheduling methodologies are the reasons for establishing standards and best practices (Levin, 2006).

2.4.4 Culture Culture is important to determine and analyze the ways of perception, evaluation and application of techniques and technology in society (Kuruoglu and Ergen, 2002). Culture is the totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts,

beliefs, institution, and all other products of human work and thought. Every project must operate within a context of one or more cultural norms. This area of influence includes political, economic, demographic, educational, ethical, ethnics, religious, and other areas of practice, belief, and attitudes that effects the way people interact (PMBOK, 2004).

23

24

CHAPTER THREE FACTORS AFFECTING SCHEDULING PROCESS

Schedule delays and cost over runs are not a recent phenomenon (Son and Rojas, 2011). The dynamic and unique nature of construction projects makes it difficult to plan, schedule and control. Most research in factors affecting scheduling has been taken up by developed countries. The difference in context, the

applicability in developing countries may not be the same and is therefore in need of exploration (Iyer and Jha, 2006). Kuruoglu and Ergen (2002) explained that

developing societies do not approach problems the same ways developed societies do. Though this may be partly due to cultural differences, other factors have significant effects. This chapter explores the common problems affecting the scheduling process and provides a background of the problems. A brief summary of an initial survey is

presented about the schedule phenomena in the Belizean construction industry.

3.1 Scheduling Process Problems Project schedules by nature are evolutionary documents and contain varying amounts of detail. As a project progresses, more information is available and the

schedule is appropriately refined to reflect the available data (Hartley, 1993). Planning and scheduling cannot be though as a one-time task, but rather a process throughout the life of the project (PMBOK, 2004). The dynamics of the project, the characteristics of the participants and the nature of the environment constitute the factors that constantly influence changes and 25

the schedule performance. However, Hartley (1993) commented that successful planning and schedule development and control process is inherently affected by a scheduling system. This scheduling system consists of the characteristics of

personnel and procedures that cause problems in the scheduling process as shown in Figure 3.1. This will determine how well the schedule will serve as an efficient

management tool (PMI, 2007).

Personnel Lack of commitment, competence and coordination Lack of experience and knowledge Lack of communication Poor Management

Procedures Improper Planning Improper use of scheduling methods and techniques Lack of standards and schedule specification Improper use and knowledge of software

Fig. 3.1 Scheduling process problems

3.1.1 Personnel Lack of commitment, competence, and coordination Project managers competence, commitment of the project participants, owners competence and coordination among project participants predominantly contribute towards success of the project. Competence enables the project

participants to make appropriate decisions on time including corrective actions if necessary. Commitment motivates the team toward successful and on-time

completion of the project. While, coordination keeps the flow of information, resources and skills among the various participants engage in a project (Jha and Iyer, 2007). 26

Lack of experience and knowledge Individuals with construction knowledge and experience should carry out the early project planning so that interference between design and construction can be avoided (Nima et al., 2002). Hartley (1993) stated that without the involvement of

skilled and experienced personnel, scheduling is doomed to fail. There are many short comings when schedule personnel are inexperienced. The most common of this is unrealistic planning (Nima et al., 2002) and unrealistic base-lined schedules (Son and Rojas, 2011). This is mainly because todays schedulers have been taught a mechanized approach to scheduling that downplays or even ignores the planning process (Ponce de Leon, 2008).

Lack of communication amongst project participants Lack of communication is always listed as one of the short comings for poor project schedule performance. Communicating involves the exchange of information. The sender and receiver are responsible for clear, unambiguous and complete diffusion of information (PMBOK, 2004). Projects schedules are the medium

through which information is presented for the clear execution of the project. To attain maximum benefits, the continual use of the project schedule by all project participants is necessary.

Poor management Participants often experience some sort of schedule pressure which often causes out-of-order work to be corrected (Nepal et al., 2006). PM solutions need to be flexible so that schedules can weather out these and other turbulences. management fails to integrate and respond to difficulties that may arise. 27 Poor

Combining

superior scheduling solutions with strong project management, close communication among project participants and standardization of technology and procedures make a good model for success (Sappe, 2007).

3.1.2 Procedures Improper planning Construction projects involve large group of activities to achieve the goals in the project scope. These activities require vast amount of resources, having them available at the right time and in the proper quantity is a challenge, which project managers are constantly faced with. Additionally resources are not always provided

at construction sites upon demand because some of them are scarce in the market (Kim et al., 2005). Some of these challenges can sometimes be mitigated or even Ponce de Leon (2008) concurs with this by stating

avoided with proper planning.

that the one common thread linking the majority of schedule slippage is having inadequate collaborative planning. Planning is the essence of project management, the aim of which is to achieve a defined objective within defined temporal and financial constraints (Long et al., 2004). Glenwright (2004) also agrees that the main issue plaguing scheduling planning and development is not doing enough planning of the details of the contract execution.

Improper use of scheduling methods and tools The drivers of success are not in the relative advantage of one scheduling algorithm over the other, but in how your project scheduling process uses the tools and methods available to the projects best advantage (Griffith, 2005). When properly 28

used, scheduling methods and tools force the project team to break down the project into discrete activities, estimate the duration of each, and think through the possible and preferable sequencing of the activities (Griffith, 2005).

Inefficient standards and specification I cant stress enough the correlation between standardization and success, writes Richard Sappe (2007). A comprehensive planning and scheduling specification system can aid in the planning and job sequencing of financing, workforce, material and equipment (Ballast and Popescu, 2001). Schedule provisions are necessary for a number of issues (Levin, 2006). They contain information regarding the qualification of the scheduler, the scheduling methods, tools and techniques that are to be used. They establish the ground rule for

owner-supplied materials or actions required in given events. Additionally, schedule specifications transfer risk to the respective project participants.

Incompetent use of software Many of the schedules were modeled in scheduling software packages, but the activities were not networked together systematically (Griffith, 2005). Many

researchers have found out the scheduling software in many instances is used mainly for representation purposes and not for communicating the project deliverable and time of deliverables (Herroleon, 2005). 3.1.3 Problems in Developing Countries Good project performance or project success is not common in the construction industry. Hence, many professionals and scholars have been motivated 29

to take extensive efforts to meet this challenge (Long et al., 2004). Previous research has found that the major problems contractors in developing countries are faced with can be classified into four groups. They are: problems imposed by the industry, problems of inaccurate information, failure to meet obligations on the part of project participants, and problems imposed by their own short comings (Odeh and Battaineh, 2002). Ogunlana et al. (1996) stated that the

construction industry problems in developing countries are nested in three layers: inadequacies in the industry infrastructure, problems caused by owners and consultants, and problems caused by the contractors incompetence.

Inadequacies of the infrastructure Lack of management skill and technical personnel is one of the most noted shortcomings of the industry in developing countries. The few individuals that

practice project management are at the mercy of uncertainty of resource shortage and a fluctuation of work force with variable productivity. The productivity may be attributed to the lack of improper training and associations that regulates the acceptable productivity yield (Odeh and Battaineh, 2002). Accurate estimation needs accurate information in terms of quality, flow and availability (Long et al., 2004). It is commonly perceived that the contractor is

ultimately responsible for the schedule performance, but the project involves owners, designers and other people who are also responsible for the problems. Schedule specifications are often inconsistent, confusing and poorly written, and the owners construction management staff lacks the expertise to verify compliance. Therefore causing a lack of respect to the schedule specification and

standard that are usually part of the contract requirement (Warhoe, 2009) 30

Problems caused by owners and consultants Owners are unwilling to delegate authority to consultants to do the project management (Odeh and Battaineh, 2002). ineffectively. This causes managing the contract

This may be the outcome of the general practice where designers Owners are

/consultants and construction management is usually not well defined.

constantly causing interference, setting unrealistic contract duration, delaying payments for completed works (Long et al., 2004). Owners and consultants with

slow decision making and limited support in project management plague the general construction practice.

Problems caused by contactors Contractors are reluctant to use scheduling techniques and to update schedules on a regular basis (Odeh and Battaineh, 2002). Despite the fact that contractors are

required to submit schedules on most work, the schedules are often summary that are hard used and updated. The inadequate contractor experience is the most common

known phenomenon which is caused by the selection carried out by the consultants and owners when considering the lowest bidder as candidate for the project (Long et al., 2004). Contractors lack management skill and are reluctant to invest in planning It is common to find that most on-site

and control or to hire construction managers.

manager are experienced civil engineers but with little training or education in management.

31

3.2 Initial Survey in Belize The purpose of this initial survey was to get an initial understanding of scheduling practice in Belize, a developing country. A questionnaire of 10 questions

related to factors affecting project scheduling process was designed (Appendix A). These questions were derived from references such as AACE (2006), Buziak (2008), and Iyer and Jha (2006). The questions were formatted to allow the respondents the

freedom to comment. This was done to enable to grasp an idea of the practice in project scheduling in the Belizean construction industry. Belize is a young nation that progressively is making improvements in its construction industry. Nonetheless, it can be said that there is much to be done.

The construction industry over the last decade accounted for approximately 25% of the GDP; however the industry is suffering from extreme delays due to many shortcomings. Some efforts have being made and Belize now has a certified body of There is still quiet more to be done in

professionals in the construction industry.

establishing best practice, standards and regulations. Many respondents contacted were willing to grant an interview. However, contractors were more skeptical about granting an interview. It was realized later

that the reluctance was due to their lack of management knowledge. A total of 15 professionals were surveyed, amongst were contractors, owners and architects. These individuals represent a picture of the current practice in the

construction industry in Belize, given that the least years of experience was 4 and the most was 20, with an average of about 12 years.

32

3.2.1 Preliminary Results The first question was to pinpoint the critical factors in the practice. Many of

the interviewees claimed that the main issue affecting project schedule is the lack of project management and scheduling by the contractors. of the interviewed agrees with this.
Management Resources Participants' Control Information 6% 17% 12% 24% 41% Ms Project P3/6 Others 7% 21% 71%

Figure 3.2 shows that 41%

Fig. 3.2 Critical factors affecting project schedules

Fig. 3.3 Most common scheduling tool

Most contractors are individuals with some experience as tradesmen and entrepreneurial skills. These individuals often run into problems such as under pricing, establishing unrealistic deadlines and often breaching initial contract agreement. This, however, does not imply that there are not capable professionals, but reflects the attitude of contractors toward planning and scheduling. The second question surveyed the use of scheduling tools. Figure 3.3 shows

majority of the respondents use MS Project as their preferred scheduling tool. This majority of the interviewees are in design and consulting firms. The 21% This

represents the contractors who often use MS Excel table or other writing tools.

indicates that scheduling knowledge is mostly within the consultants, which may create a barrier for communication by using scheduling tools between project parties Question 3 surveyed the use of pre-job meeting practices. 33 These pre-job

meetings for reviews of project scope are very important.

Griffith (2005) comments

this provides a check to ensure accuracy and opportunity for functional personnel to very their plans and expectation. However, Fig. 3.4 shows that this is not a common

practice and reinforces the fact that there is a lack of communication.

Owners yes no 25% 75% Designer/Consultants Sub/Contractor Suppliers 19% 6% 38% 38%

Fig. 3.4 Pre-job meeting for reviews of project scope

Fig. 3.5 Project Participant that affect Project Schedule

When question 4 was answered, Figure 3.5 shows that the owners and contractors cause most of the delays. This question emphasizes that scheduling

knowledge on the part of the contractors is one of the causes for deficient schedule performance. Additionally, designers/consultants and contractors suggest that Owners cause schedules to be constantly

owners demand often cause delays.

adjusted and no-value activities are sometimes done out of sequence in order to maintain a workforce, as consequence of delays in payments of work completed. This causes an increase in project cost due to rework in the tasks that are out-of-sequence. This trend has caused project participants to accept delays as part of project operations. Contractors blame owners of indecision, lack of timely payment and

excessive change orders, while owners and designers blame contractors of lacking management and scheduling knowledge to execute and deliver a project in time. 3.6 shows the responses to question 5, which asks how delays are seen. 34 Fig.

yes No

33% 67%

Yes No

17% 83%

Fig. 3.6 Are delays inevitable

Fig. 3.7 Schedulers as part of project

Schedulers are necessary for large companies with multimillion dollar projects but are a commodity for others: hence the reason for project engineer/schedulers to be employed by small to medium companies (Buziak, 2008). This means that the

project engineers should be knowledgeable to carry out project planning and scheduling. Fig. 3.7 shows it is not common for construction companies to hire schedulers as part of their project team. It is common practice for engineers that are heading a This makes it necessary for engineers in

project to provide a project schedule.

Belize to possess some scheduling knowledge. These are the responses relate to question 6. Question 7 was a direct question of the attention focus toward project schedule. Figure 3.8 shows that 42 % scored themselves low, 25 % as medium and 33% as high. However, Figure 3.9 (question 8) shows a consensus that project scheduling is essential for proper project management. Nonetheless, many claim that there is a

lack of commitment, cooperation and support from other project participants, agreeing with Jha and Iyer (2007).

35

1-4 5-7 8-10 25% 33%

42%

Yes No 17%

83%

Fig. 3.8 Attention to scheduling

Fig. 3.9 Consensus of scheduling

Control and maintenance of scheduling dictates that schedules should be frequently updated. Question 9 queried the average frequency that update is carried Figure 3.10 shows that 67% of the updates occur at

out on project schedule.

intervals greater than one month.

Planning Schedulin g 9% 91%

< 2wks. 2wks - 1mth > 1mth

17% 17% 67%

Fig. 3.10 Average update cycle

Fig. 3.11 More challenging phase

Time management has two basic phases, planning and scheduling. asked which is found to be more difficult. planning to be more challenging.

Question 10

Figure 3.11 shows that 91 % claim

Majority replied that planning is more time

consuming and more difficult due to lack of historical data and industry standards. This is true for young engineers, and more experienced engineers claimed that they collect personal data that help them with future projects. 3.2.2 Informalities in the Industry After the survey results are presented, a culture toward project scheduling, the lack of management knowledge, and lack of schedule specification and standards are summarized below. 36

Planning and scheduling are viewed as waste of time. industry is overwhelmed with a variety of uncertainty.

This is because the

Amongst these uncertainties Therefore, prior

are the shortage of supplies and fluctuation of skilled labor.

planning, although practiced, is considered a useless commitment of time and efforts. Many experienced contractors do plan prior to construction, but it is rather an ad hoc activity. This ad hoc planning lacks many of the processes described in the PMBOK

(2004) in order to make it effective. Most project participants that are indirectly involved with project execution acknowledge project scheduling. However, bulk of the construction is done mostly

by experienced contractors in technical aspect of construction without schedule management knowledge. projects. Most project scheduling specifications are often copied and pasted from past projects. These are seldom updated and enforced by the owners consulting team. Not having updated and The This leads to improper planning, scheduling and control of

This affects the efforts that contractors put into scheduling.

enforced scheduling specifications lead to incomplete and unusable schedules.

levels of details presented are minimal and cannot be used to monitor and control the project progress. On the interviews held, the interviewees claimed that there is no documentation for them to rely on. No set standards for the requirements, variation of views of the

importance, and the informality of the schedules influence the contractors not to use project schedules. The limited number of professionals and the availability of an

arbitration system for contract breach disputes have made schedule delays an acceptable part of the construction industry.

37

38

CHAPTER FOUR

SURVEYING SCHEDULE PRACTICE

LEVELS AND RESULTS

After having discussed the problems and factors that affect scheduling practice in Chapter 3, a questionnaire was developed in this chapter to survey the scheduling process and performance to determine the level of practice and point out those areas that need more attention. Section 4.1 explains the need for establishing scheduling practice levels, Section 4.2 describes the questionnaire design, and Section 4.3 explains the questionnaire survey results.

4.1 Establishing Schedule Practice Levels Benchmarking and determining the levels of expertise in an organization is not a new idea. A five stage model to determine or benchmark the quality of an

organization was first presented in the late 1970s (Kwak, 2001). This was later followed by the introduction of a continuous process improvement practices for better quality management in an organization (Kwak and Ibbs, 2002). This idea can be

used to determine the levels of practice for project scheduling process.

4.1.1 Effort to establish the scheduling practice Projects are dynamic, unique and temporary that makes the scheduling practice difficult (PMBOK, 2004). One schedule model cannot work for all projects. Each

project in itself determines what tools and techniques are more adequate (Hartley, 1993). This causes project managers and schedulers in both the public and private sectors to range across an organizational spectrum, in different levels of scheduling 39

knowledge and practice.

Many have argued that defining the practice level can help

to improve performance (Barber, 2004). As evidence of the effort to determine and position an organizations level of knowledge and practice in PM, the PM2 model has been introduced (Kwak and Ibbs, 2002). Additionally the conformance index scoring using scheduling components as

described in the PMIs (2004) Practices Standard for Scheduling, reflects the maturity and levels of scheduling practice of scheduling practitioners. In the efforts to establish a scheduling practice standard, the Project Management Institute College of Scheduling (PMICOS) has two publications that discuss time management: the Project Management Book of Knowledge (PMBOK) and Practice Standard for Scheduling. In the PMBOK (2004), chapter 6 is devoted to the time

management processes, which are required to ensure a timely completion of the project. The Practice Standard for Scheduling (PMI, 2007) describes the methods

related to scheduling that are generally recognized as good practice for most project most of the time. It contains the schedule components that ought to be used to make

the scheduling model useful as a planning and control tool. The American Association of Cost Engineering (AACE) has published various Recommended Practices that delineate the responsibilities of scheduler, level of details, methodology for schedule oriented claims and analysis (AACE, 2006). All

the above literature describes the required knowledge, process, and methods and responsibilities that a scheduler should possess and practice. This literature

complements each other by having and sharing the same relevant principles related to time management requirements.

40

4.1.2 Maturity Level Assignment In order to assess the maturity level of practice, reference was made to the methodology used by the PM2 model described by Kwak and Ibbs (2002). The PM2 model has five levels of maturity, level one being the lowest and five being the highest. matur ity.
PM2 Levels

Figure 4.1 shows the different PM2 levels with their corresponding PM

Scheduling Practice Levels

Continous PM Process Improvement

Sustained Level 5

Level 5

Very formal Planning and scheduling methods are mostly used and scheduling control is mostly done Formal Planning and scheduling methods are often used alone with schedule control Moderately formal Planning and scheduling methods are sometimes used with some schedule control Informal Planning and scheduling techniques seldom used with no schedule control. Very informal Planning and scheduling techniques almost never used and no schedule control execution

Advanced Project Planning and Management

Integrated Level 4

Level 4

Standard Project Tracking

Managed Level 3

Level 3

Basic project Planning

Planned Level 2

Level 2

Adhoc PM Process

Initial Level 1

Level 1

Fig. 4.1 Schedule Practice Levels

Numeric level assignment to qualitative responses enables such to be quantitative. The questions in parts B, C, and D in the questionnaire (Appendix B) give the respondents 5 options to choose from. The answers are in a Likert scale form which

surveyed the agreement, frequency, formality, and importance of the factors 41

of the scheduling practice.

To the five options provided, each progressive as the

level of the Likert scale from low to high, or 1 to 5, respectively, indicating the level of maturity. (2002). Figure 4.1 shows the similarity between the PM2 and scheduling practice maturity levels. Note that the scheduling maturity practice levels correspond to To evaluate the levels of any sample, the averages of each Moreover, these averages can be further This is similar to the PM2 model that was developed by Ibbs and Kwak

those of the PM2 model.

part (B, C and D) will be indicative of such.

average to indicate an overall level of performance. Note that Figure 4.1 shows that as the practice maturity level increases, so does the formal level of planning and scheduling methods and techniques practiced.

4.2 Questionnaire Design A questionnaire was developed to target construction project participants in Taiwan and Belize (Appendix B). These participants involve contractors, consultants and owners working in the public and private sectors of the construction industry. The design of this questionnaire took into consideration the literature regarding the scheduling practice. The questionnaire consists of four parts: general

information, project environment, scheduling process and scheduling performance. The general information of the respondents was collected to correlate the experience and area of work to the level of schedule practice. 4.2.1 General Information This part covers general information of the project participants surveyed. The

questions are related to the type and size of organization, and the position the 42

respondent holds in the organization.

It also covers the years of experience, how

scheduling knowledge was obtained and whether scheduling is a major part of their job description. These questions are required to determine the quality of

knowledge available and how well it is being used and in which sector of the industry is being more successful in implementing scheduling process.

4.2.2 Project Environment This part covers the project environment in which scheduling process is developed and utilized for monitoring and control. It has eight questions, the first

two questions address the size and complexity of the projects, the following four address how project participants view project scheduling. survey the use of scheduling specifications. The first question attempts to identify the size of projects that are normally practiced in term of duration. practice that is required. This will provide a measure for the need of scheduling The last two questions

The second question addresses how project complexity This is because project

affects the effort and time that are required for scheduling.

complexity usually demands an exceptional level of management (Baccarini, 1996). Jha and Iyer (2007) have stated that commitment of project participants, including the owner, is dominating factor for schedule compliance. Therefore questions 3 through 6 addresses how the project participants view the use of scheduling as a management tool in their project management. Question 7 is directed to find out whether scheduling specifications are carefully designed for each project. Schedule specifications are important for they contain the

necessary information regarding the type of schedules, the update cycle and specify

43

who is required to elaborate the project schedule (Levin, 2006).

These requirements

can affect the project schedule development process; this is the aim of question 8.

4.2.3 Scheduling Process This part of the questionnaire surveys the use of schedule methods, tools and techniques. Additionally it covers use of CPM technique, resource loading, earned

value analysis and the scheduling update cycle. The first two questions ask the scheduling method and the tools used to develop and represent their schedules. identify the project activities. Question 3 queries how often the WBS is used to The WBS is a planning tools used to develop or Question 4

confirm a common understanding of the project scope (PMBOK, 2004).

is related to the use of other relationship other that finish-start in the PDM scheduling method. This question is referenced from the component list of the PMI (2007).

The use of more relationships to sequence activities has a direct relationship to the maturity level associated with scheduling practice. The use of well developed, updated and consistently used CPM scheduling during a project can increase the probability of a project finishing on time (Galloway, 2005). Thereafter question 5 is related to the use of CPM techniques in project Questions 6 and 7 survey the use of additional techniques on project

schedule.

schedules: resource loading and earned value analysis, which though are considered optional components by the practice standard for scheduling, forming part of schedule control phase (PMI, 2007) As the project progresses, the schedule should be updated at regular intervals. This update cycle is addressed in question 8. As the work progress the owner may

44

ask, when will the project be completed? As a control tool the time and cost information of the work performed is essential. included as part of the scheduling process section. To address this, question 9 was

4.2.4 Schedule Performance This part discusses the delays that are common in the industry, the cost spent on scheduling and level of satisfaction the practitioner have toward the current practice. Project delays are one of the biggest problems construction firms are facing today (Tumi et al., 2009). This makes it noteworthy to assess the schedule performance in Question 1 asks the delays that each

order to assess it in a particular industry. individual has experienced.

The delays are measured as a percentage of the

baseline schedule: this will provide a more indicative ratio, rather than measuring the delays in unit time, which would be dependent of the duration of the project. Using schedule tools and techniques on projects does require investment of time and money. Practitioners assert that using these practices drive a better outcome that outweighs the cost to implement (Griffith, 2005), thought in its initial stage the returns are not high (Ibbs and Reginato, 2002). Therefore, question 2 surveys the actual cost that is being spent for working on schedules. Project scheduling management has two phases: planning and scheduling. successful schedule development is only as good as the planning efforts. The

Improper

planning and scheduling has been identified as one of the causes of delays in the construction projects (Long et al., 2004). based on initial planning. Question 3 queries the developed schedule

Project schedule defines the scopes of work of a project

which can be used to communicate the deliverables required to complete the project.

45

The use of the project schedule as a tool to improve communication is queried in question 4. Change is inevitable and every project will experience it (PMI, 2007). The use of the project schedule as control tool is dependent on accurate reporting and tracking of the baseline. project team. Nonetheless this is dependent on the schedule capabilities of the

Question 5 addresses the degree to which project schedules are used

for time control. Overall, the last question surveys the level of satisfaction that the respondent has toward project schedule.

4.3 Survey Process and Results The questionnaire was first designed in English (Appendix B) and then translated to Chinese (Appendix C). This was done in order to survey the professionals

project schedule maturity of both Belize and Taiwan. The questionnaire was made available to the professionals of the Belizean construction industry via e-mails containing an attached Word file and a link to a web page. Some of the responses were e-mailed back whilst others were directly

uploaded to the online web page. Of the 70 questionnaire that were sent to Belize, a total of 29 responses were collected. Ten of the responses were e-mailed, whilst the remaining 19 were uploaded directly to the web page, this account to 41% of the questionnaires sent. None of these responses were discarded.

The Chinese translated questionnaire web link was also e-mailed to professionals of Taiwan in addition to the hard copies that were made available at seminars and visits. Taiwanese responses were divided in to three groups: owners, consultants and

contractors.

46

The Taiwanese responses accumulated to a total of 71, 31 of these are from an engineering consulting firm of which 3 responses were from contractors. The remaining 40 are from general population of professionals. From the 40 general

responses, 7 were discarded because of incompletion and entire parts being left unanswered. The surveyed results are presented in the following sections.

4.3.1 General Information Respondent Background Table 4.1 shows an even distribution of the respondents organizational background. Thirty four percent of the respondents are either government Civil and

employed or private owner, whilst 38% of them are consultants. mechanical contractors add to 28%.

A closer look reveals that in the Belize 48% of Figure 4.2

the respondents form part of the government or private owner group. displays the respondents organizations. Table 4.1 Respo ndents organizat ions Belize Respondents Type of organization No. Resp. Owners 14 Consultants 7 Contractors 8 Total 29 Taiwan Total % No. Resp. % No. Resp. 48 18 28 32 24 28 44 35 28 18 28 26 100 64 100 93

% 34 38 28 100

60% 40% 20% 0%

48% 28%

Belize

Taiwan 44% 24% 28% 28%

Owners

Consultants

Contractors

Fig. 4.2 Respondent organizations 47

Organization Size Figure 4.3 shows that there is almost an even distribution of small-medium to large companies in Belize. Majority of respondents in Belize consider that their

organization size is small. Twenty eight percent of the respondents consider this to be true. However in Taiwan, 56% of the owners consider the relative size of their

organization to be large, while 68% of the consultants also consider their organization to be large. While 51% of the contractors, being the majority consider their This indicates that majority

organization to range from small-medium to medium.

of the organization in Taiwan are larger than those found in Belize.

80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 28% 6%

Belize

Owners

Consultants

Contractors

68% 56%

33% 22% 0% 17% 17% 4% Small-medium

28% 21% 18% 21% 17% 14% 11% 6% 6% Medium Medium-large

11%

Small

Large

Fig. 4.3 Relative size of organization

Respondent Job Position Figure 4.4 shows that majority of the respondents in the four groups are engineers. Engineers from Belize were 45%, owner group 39%, consultants 89%

while 50% were contractors. Apart from engineers, department managers and project managers were amongst the respondents. Thirty one percent of the respondents from

Belize were department managers, while 14% were project managers.

48

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 31% 6%

Belize

Owners

Consultants 89% 50% 45% 39%

Contractors

28% 0% 14% 11% 11% 7% Project manager

39% 0% 0% 6% 10% 4% 6% 6% Others

Department manager

Engineer

Staff Position

Fig. 4.4 Positions of respondents

Years of Experience As shown in Figure 4.5, thirty four percent of the respondents in Belize have 5 years or less of experience, however that is not the case for the respondents in Taiwan. The three groups in Taiwan responded having similar length of experience. Majority

(28%) of the respondents claim to have an average of 11-15 years of experience.

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 14% 11% 6% 5 34% Belize Owners Consultants Contractors 28% 21% 14% 7% 11% 22% 21% 17% 11%

29% 28% 28% 28% 25% 24% 22%

6 10

1115

1620

20 years

Fig. 4.5 Number of years of experience

Scheduling as a Major or Minor Job Figure 4.6 shows scheduling is equally a major and minor part of the job of the Belize and the contractor group. Fifty six percent of the owners claim to practice 49

scheduling as a major part of their job, while only 33% do as a minor part of their job. This high percentage by the owner indicates that owners in Taiwan consider scheduling important but they probably are not doing scheduling by themselves. The consultants probably reflect the reality of less major jobs than minor jobs (57%).
Belize 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Major job Minor job 10% 11% 7% 0% Not part of your job 45% 36% 56% 57% 50% 45% 33% 50% Owners Consultants Contractors

Fig. 4.6 Scheduling as part of the respondents job description

Source Scheduling Knowledge In Figure 4.7 scheduling knowledge for all groups was acquired by a mixture of self-learning, on job training and formal academic courses. Nonetheless,

on-the-job training and other training courses are very low for Belize and owners: however on-the-job training and training courses for consultants is relatively higher than other groups. Forty one percent of Belizes respondents have obtained from formal training institution, 39% of the contractors in Taiwan also have formal training. Forty four

percent of the owners self learned scheduling knowledge. This knowledge deserves further examination because owners play a central role in schedule management.

50

Belize 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 44% 31%

Owners

Consultants

Contractors 41%

39%

28% 18%

29% 28% 17% 14%

29% 14% 11% 6%

25% 22%

6% 0%

Self-learned

On the job training

Training courses Undergraduate or graduate courses

Others

Fig. 4.7 Source of scheduling knowledge

4.3.2 Project Environment Average Project Durations Figure 4.8 shows the distribution of the responses related to the average project durations. Majority of project durations in Belize range from 6 months to 2 years. However, the

The projects by the owners in Taiwan range from 6 months to 3 years.

consultants and contractors in Taiwan have seen projects with longer durations. Most respondent in Belize have not seen projects extending more than three years, this can be explained by the lack of large infrastructural projects. Most

construction in Belize is centered in commercial, tourist, and residential development. Bridges are usually constructed in less than two years and highways are usually confined to short term contracts due to financing. all sorts of project hence the responses gathered. Taiwan however is involved with The consultants group, however,

reflects a large company that specializes in large projects most lasting more than 3 years.

51

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Belize 55%

Owners

Consultants 61%

Contractors 54% 33% 25% 17% 14% 0%0% 33%

10% 6% 6% 0% 0.5

17% 17% 0% 0.5 1

21% 21% 11%

1-2

2-3

> 3 years

Fig. 4.8 Average project duration

Project Complexity While duration and size are complexity drivers, the efforts devoted to project schedules are evidence of the acknowledgement by the project participant of project complexity toward the process of scheduling. Figure 4.9 shows that all three

groups acknowledge project complexity to be a factor in their scheduling process. The Belizean responses on project complexity and project duration do not correlate because the project size and project duration are only some of the drivers that define project complexity. Nonetheless, all the responses on project complexity for the

three groups correlated positively with each other.

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 3% 0% 0%

Belize

Owners

Consultants

Contractors 48% 50% 44% 39%

31% 22% 22% 6% 7% 6% 11% 0% 0% Sometimes Usually

39% 33% 28%

10%

Not at all

Seldom

Mostly

Fig. 4.9 Project complexity increasing efforts to project schedules 52

Owners View on Schedule Uses Figure 4.10 shows that Taiwanese respondents consider owners to view project schedule as a formal and very formal document and tool for project management. Owners in Belize consider project schedule as an informal to moderately formal document and tool for project management. It is noted that contractors have the

highest formality percentage (50%) of responses regarding how owners see the use of project schedule. The high percentage probably indicates that the Taiwanese owners

regard schedule important formally, but not necessarily require formal schedule documentation or practices.
Belize 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Very informal Informal Moderately formal Formal Very formal 3% 4% 4% 6% 31% 22% 44% 34% 21% 24% 25% 11% 7% 17% Owners Consultants Contractors 56% 46% 44%

Fig. 4.10 Owners view on project schedule

The view of owners toward scheduling is very important to the way other project participants will utilize project schedules. The view of the Taiwanese owner towards

scheduling is one of the factors influencing the responses obtained regarding the use of scheduling specifications and the ultimate project performance.

53

Owner Sophistication The owners sophistication was mentioned as one of the factors that influence the outcome of a project schedule. Figure 4.11 shows that in Belize, thirty eight percent

consider that owners only have a medium effect on the project schedule management, and Taiwanese owners are thought to be much more influencing than in Belize. Forty four percent of the owners know they have much influence, and 50% of the consultants and contractors considered owners having much influence on the management of project schedule.

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 14%

Belize

Owners

Consultants

Contractors 50% 50% 44%

38% 22% 17% 11%11% 29% 22% 22%

21%

22% 10% 11% 6%

Very little

Little

Medium

Much

Very much

Fig. 4.11 Owners knowledge and experience effect on project scheduling

Project Participants View of Project Planning and Scheduling Figure 4.12 shows that Belizean project participants consider project planning and scheduling less formal that their counterparts in Taiwan. Forty four percent of

Taiwanese owners consider project planning and scheduling as formal and 17% consider it very formal. While only 31% of the Belizean respondents consider it Consultants and contractors see project planning and

formal and 7% as very formal. scheduling as formal.

54

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 3% 0%

Belize

Owners

Consultants 48%

Contractors 50% 44%43%

33% 33% 31% 29% 10% 6%7%6% Informal Moderately formal Formal 18% 17% 11% 7%

4%

0%

Very informal

Very formal

Fig. 4.12 Project participants view of project planning and scheduling

Planning Prior to Schedule Development Project planning is the initial phase of project scheduling. Figure 4.13 shows

more than 33% of all the respondents from all groups believed that sufficient planning is done prior to schedule development. Seventeen percent of the contractors mostly do planning prior to scheduling this is followed by 14% of the consultant. Belize participant rank lower. Owners and

This indicates that as more directly involved in the

execution the respondent is, the more planning is required before the scheduling phase.

Belize 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Not at all 3% 4% 28%

Owners

Consultants 44%

Contractors

39% 38%39%39% 33% 32% 14% 17% 10% 6% Usually Mostly

21% 11% 11% 11%

Seldom

Sometimes

Fig. 4.13 Planning done prior scheduling development 55

Schedule Specification Similarities Figure 4.15 shows the use of similar scheduling specifications in contract documents. Belizean respondent allege that 34% of the schedule specification are However, 61% of Taiwan owners claim that project schedule

usually the same.

specifications are sometimes the same, followed by the consultants with 64% and contractors with 44%.
Belize 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 0% 4% 34% 33% 31% 28% 14% 6% Usually sometimes Owners Consultants 61% 64% 44% 24% Contractors

18% 11% 6%

6% 6% 0% 0% not at all

Mostly

seldom

Fig. 4.15 Specifications similarity for projects

For the Taiwanese groups there is no consistency in response.

Belizes

specifications are usually the same and the maturity of the Belizean owners is low. However for the Taiwanese group, the specifications are sometimes the same in spite the owner views toward formal scheduling. This can indicate that the view of the

owner can have the effect of increasing the quality of specifications. Project schedule specifications contain the instructions related to the schedule management, these are important given that all projects are unique. Therefore

project schedule specifications cannot all be the same, yet it is common to have outdated schedules that are of a generalized nature and not adapted to the current project. 56

Schedule Requirements effect on Scheduling Process In Figure 4.15 it can be observed that in Belize 45% of the times schedule requirements usually affects the scheduling process. However, that percentage

was lower for Taiwan owners with 33% respondents saying that schedule requirements usually affects the scheduling process and 21% of consultants scored even lower. This clearly states that for both owners and consultants, the effects of

schedule requirements are not significant even though they might be involved in the scheduling process. Contractors are far more concerned hence they stated that 39%

of the times the requirements usually affect the scheduling process.

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 3% 0%

Belize

Owners

Consultants 50% 33% 33%

Contractors 45% 33%

39% 22% 18% 17% 7%

24% 11% 11%

21%

21%

Not at all

Seldom

Sometimes

Usually

Mostly

Fig. 4.15 Schedule requirements affecting scheduling process

4.3.3 Scheduling Process Type of Scheduling Methods The use of bar chart (Gantt chart) dominates the scheduling practice in Belize and Taiwan, however the use of network scheduling methods are the most popular in Taiwan. Figure 4.16 shows that 52%, 56%, 39% and 56% of the Belize, owners, 57

consultants and contractors respondents respectively use Bar Chart as their main scheduling method. While ADM (PDM) is not popular in Belize, in Taiwan 39% of

the owners, 54% of consultants and 33% of the contractors use it. The small percentage of the respondents using ADM or PDM in Belize can be a reflection of the size of construction projects. Given that project sizes are not large, bar charts or even list of activities or calendars, are sufficient.

Belize 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 17% 0% 7%

Owners

Consultants

Contractors 56% 52% 56% 54% 39% 33%

39% 21% 11% 6%

10% 0% 0% Bar Chart ADM or PDM network

List of activities

Calendar

Fig. 4.16 Types of scheduling method often used Scheduling Tool Figure 4.17 shows that while MS Project is the most popular in Belize (83%), this corresponds with the initial survey. Fifty percent of the owners in Taiwan often

use Excel or Visio as their main scheduling tool, which indicates some shortcoming in schedule knowledge. Tools like Excel/Visio and AutoCAD are used, but not with a The use of Primavera in Belize does not

significant percentage in the other groups. exist.

The consultants use it the most that 36% of them claim to use it.

Scheduling tools, especially commercial software package like MS Project and Primavera allows the scheduler to easily produce and update a schedule. However,

the use of such software has dominated the scheduling practice, not all project stakeholders use them. 58

Belize 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Owners

Consultants 83%

Contractors

50% 28% 7% 6% 11% 6% 10% 7%

50% 46% 28% 36% 11% 0% MS Project Primavera 17%

AutoCAD

Excel/Visio

Fig. 4.17 Type of scheduling tool often used

Use of Work Break-down Structure (WBS) Figure 4.18 shows that the use of WBS is more popular in Belize than in Taiwan. Consultant respondents claim that 39% of time it is usually used, however only 6% of the owner respondents usually uses it while 17% of the contractors usually use WBS. Forty four percent of the owners seldom use WBS, this is probably because However, the 39% of contractors who seldom

owners are seldom required to plan. use WBS is alarming.

Belize 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Never Seldom 22% 7% 11% 4% 17% 7% 44% Owners

Consultants

Contractors

48% 39% 36% 28% 21% 17% 39% 17% 6% Sometimes Usually 17% 11%

7% 0%

Often

Fig. 4.18 Use of WBS for planning 59

Sequencing Activities Relationships Sequencing of activities is important when developing project schedules. The

use of relationships depicts the sequence of the activities and though there are four types of relationships, the most common relationship is finish-start. This

relationship is less complicated for none experience scheduler, given that the other relationships represent particular conditions which more knowledgeable schedulers. Therefore it is not surprising for Figure 4.20 to show that other relationships are seldom used.
Belize 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 11% 3% 0% 0% Never Seldom Sometimes Usually 33% 31% 17% 14% 21% 33% Owners Consultants 56% 50% Contractors

28%

22% 18%

17%

11%

18% 17%

0% Often

Fig. 4.19 Use of sequencing relationship other than finish-start on PDM

Less than 20% of all respondents claim to often use other relationship other than finish-start. Twenty eight percent of Belize respondents, 11% of owners, Majority of Belize

18% of consultants and 22% of the contractors claim they usually use.

the respondents claim to only sometimes use other relationships.

respondents seldom use other relationships, which is consistent with the result from Figure 4.16 where only 10% of the respondents use ADM (PDM) scheduling method.

60

Use of CPM Techniques The use CPM on project schedule is synonymous with project success. Additionally the knowledge of CPM is a reference of formal scheduling training. Figure 4.20 shows that 7% of the respondents in Belize said they often use CPM techniques, while 11%, 25% and 28% of the respondents for the owners, consultant and contractor group respectively responded they often use CPM as part of their scheduling technique. Note that in Taiwan, contractors are the ones that use CPM

the most: this is an indication of the usefulness in project management.

Belize 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

Owners

Consultants Contractors 38% 36% 33% 33% 22% 18% 24% 22% 28% 25%

28% 22% 21% 17%

14%

11% 7% 0%

Never

Seldom

Sometimes

Usually

Often

Fig. 4.20 Use of CPM techniques for project schedule

However, in Belize only 24% of the respondents in Belize claim to usually use CPM. The lack use of CPM techniques might be an explanation to the delays that

are experienced in the Belizean industry.

Resource Loading Though resource loading is optional according to the Practice Standard for Scheduling, resource allocation gives the project team more control over resource commitment to activities, project costs and performance. 61 However, resource loading

is usually not practiced.

Figure 4.21 shows that resource loading is used seldom or Thirty eight percent of the Belizeans respondents

sometimes by most respondents.

claim that they usually make use of resource loading, this is unusual and contrary to findings of the initial survey.

Belize 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Never 7% 7%6% 33%

Owners 39% 28% 29% 21%

Consultants 43% 33% 33% 28%

Contractors 38%

17% 11% 11% 6% 6% 7% 0% Sometimes Usually Often

Seldom

Fig. 4.21 Use of resource loading on project schedules

Earned Value Analysis in Project Schedule Control Similar results were gathered from respondents using earned value (EV) analysis as a project control technique. Figure 4.22 illustrates that majority of the The contractors surveyed do not include

respondents in both countries seldom use it.

EV analysis as part of the schedule control technique.

120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Never 33% 24% 4%

Belize 1

Owners

Consultants

Contractors

50% 43% 34%

32% 24% 17%

14% 18% 0% Usually

3%0%4% Often

Seldom

Sometimes

Fig. 4.22 Use of earned value analysis 62

Schedule Update Cycle Updating schedules is necessary for projects are never executed as planned for the most part. Figure 4.23 shows that for the major part, updates for both Belize and owners group are done once or twice during the project life, though some respondents also claims that updates are done every month or even in shorter intervals. Most

consultants do schedule update every 3 months, however contractors do updates every month. It is logical for contractors to update their schedules more regularly given

that they are the doers of projects and mainly responsible for project delays.

Belize 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 17% 7% 7% 0% 45%

Owners 39% 21%

Consultants

Contractors 39% 28% 28%

32% 33% 11% 0% 0%

29% 21% 17%

17% 11%

No update

once or twice during the project period

every 3 months

every month every 1 or 2 weeks

Fig. 4.23 Update cycle Time to complete Knowing when a project is going to be complete is important to all project stakeholders. This could be the reason for Figure 4.24 showing time to complete Forty five percent and 50% of the respondents

is usually and often calculated.

for Belize and the consultants respectively claim to usually estimate time to complete in their projects. However fewer owners (33%) claim to do so. Forty four percent

of the contractors often estimate time to complete and this highest rate reflects their concern about project schedule. 63

Belize 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Never 11% 10% 4%

Owners

Consultants

Contractors 45% 50% 44% 29% 22% 11% 10%

0%

17% 11% 4%

22% 17% 17% 14%

28%

33%

Seldom

Sometimes

Usually

Often

Fig. 4.24 Calculations of time to complete upon project updating

4.3.4 Schedule Performance Average Delays The delays suffered in a project are the direct reflection of the degree of performance. Figure 4.25 shows that in Belize 52% of the average delays exceed

10% of the initial planned construction baseline. While in Taiwan most delays occur between 1 and 6% of planned schedules. Project being ahead of time are seldom in

Belize, but in Taiwan, 21% of the consultants claim that delays are less than 1% or ahead of schedule, while 17% of the contractors claim the same.
Belize 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 17% 17% 7% 10% 0% 79% 46% 13% 11% 10% 7% 52% 39% 39% 25% 17% 17% 11% 39% 39% 21% 17% 11% 3% 1% or ahead of time Owners Consultants Contractors

Fig. 4.25 Average schedule delay 64

Cost Spent on Project Schedules Figure 4.26 shows that majority of the respondents think that cost being spent on project schedule is little. Nonetheless, 39% of the contractors consider that cost spent on scheduling is medium. This reflects that contractors spend more, given that they

need to update and use other techniques for schedule control.

Belize 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Very little 4% 33% 24% 28%

Owners 50%

Consultants

Contractors

44% 41% 28% 28%

39% 32% 14% 7% 6% 6% 0% very much

17%

Little

Medium

Much

Fig. 4.26 Cost spent toward project schedules Table 4.2 shows average costs corresponding to the four groups from 1.37 to 2.06%. Note that contractors spend more on scheduling, this corresponds with

Figure 4.26. These costs are considered by the respondents as expenditures in their organization.

Table 4.2 Cost of scheduling as a percentage of overhead Countries & Parties Belize Owners Consultants Contractors Average (%) 1.69 1.37 1.82 2.06 STD (%) 1.45 0.85 1.46 1.52

65

Project Schedule as a Result of Good Planning Figure 4.27 shows that Belizeans are optimistic by 48% when consider that the schedule document developed is usually the product of good prior planning. Additionally 17% also say mostly, this is contrary, given that is was found that planning is one of the weakness of the Belizean industry. politically correct answer.
Belize Owners Consultant 50% 28% 28% 22% 18% 3% 0% 3% Seldom Sometimes Usually 44% 39% Contractors 48% 39% 22% 17% 17%

This is maybe the

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

11% 6%4%

Not at all

Mostly

Fig. 4.27 Scheduling as a result of good planning Analyzing the responses from Taiwan, it is observed that their responses are more evenly distributed, centered around schedule being sometimes the product of good planning. Consultant responses have the same trend with Belize, but their max

responses of usually accumulates to 39%.

Schedule Improves Communication Project schedules are used for communication among project participants. Hence, Figure 4.28 addresses the opinions of the respondents on whether schedule improves communication. Fifty nine percent of the Belizean respondents consider This is ironic since it was found in the Thirty nine of the owners claim that

schedule usually increase communications. initial survey that schedule is quiet deficient. 66

schedule usually improves communications along with 36% of the consultants and 33% of the contractors. Contractors opinion is also that 28% of the times schedule This indicates that the contractors are using

mostly increases communication.

scheduling more than any other groups.

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Belize

Owners

Consultants Contractors 59% 43% 39% 36% 33% 21% 10% 0%

33% 17% 10% 11%

33%

28%

6% 0% 0% 0% Not at all

11% 11%

Seldom

sometimes

Usually

Mostly

Fig. 4.28 Opinions of project schedule improving communication Schedule Use for Time Control The last phase of project planning and scheduling is schedule control. respondents from both countries strongly agree with this. The

Figure 4.29 shows 59% of

Belizes respondents consider that schedules are usually well used for time control, while 33%, 46% and 28% for owners, consultants and contractors respectively agree to this. Comparing the results from the previous questions and it can be seen that the

responses are relative the same. Here again the contractors are claiming that schedule are well used for project time control. This can explained, given that the contractors should benefit the most

by using a project schedule on the projects.

67

80% 60% 40%

Belize

Owners

Consultants 59% 39% 33% 22% 10%

Contractors 46% 33% 28% 21% 28% 11% 7%

22% 22% 20% 0% 0%0%0%0% Not at all 10% 7% Seldom

Sometimes

Usually

Mostly

Fig. 4.29 Schedules being used for project time control

Overall Satisfaction with Scheduling Practice Finally, the project participants of both countries are on average 33% medium satisfied with scheduling practice. While consultants are 61% medium satisfied.

This shows that there is a lot of room for improvement given that only 24% of the Belizean respondents are much satisfied (Fig. 4.30). .

Belize 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 7% 6% 11% 0%

Owners

Consultants 61%

Contractors

33% 24% 17% 14%

34% 33% 33% 24% 21% 22%

28%

11% 10% 6% 4% Medium Much Very much

Very Little

Little

Fig. 4.30 Overall satisfactions with current scheduling practice

From the Taiwanese respondents, the owners are 22% much satisfied, consultants are 21% much satisfied, and 11% for the contractors. 68 But 28% of the contractors

are very much overall satisfied with the schedule practice.

From the previous

figures it can be seen that contractors are using project schedules more than any other groups, which gives them the opportunity to often adjust and appreciate the value of schedules.

69

70

CHAPTER FIVE

LINKAGE ANALYSIS OF SCHEDULING ASPECTS

This chapter presents the analysis of the different scheduling aspects. Section 5.1 contains the linkage strategy; Section 5.2 presents the linkage analysis results.

5.1 Linkage Strategy 5.1.1 Relationships to be Identified Several steps were done prior to the identification of the most relevant relationships. First, the scheduling practice levels of 1 5 from the responses were averaged for each of the questions and each of the parts in the questionnaire, part B, C, and D, respectively. The averages indicate levels of scheduling practice within the surveyed groups, which is a directly associated with the maturity levels. averages were compared to analyze the relationships. Second, questions from each of the parts were examined and cross linked to establish relationships. Figure 5.1 is an overall snapshot of the questions in the questionnaire, categorized by parts. based on relevance. It shows the relationships that were defined These

The letter and number shown besides each question represents Only some aspects were taken into

the other question with which it was analyzed.

consideration, but all the aspects of schedule performance were linked either to the scheduling process or the project environment because schedule performance is of great importance.

71

Fig 5.1 Scheduling aspects tested for relationships

Third, inferential statistics was used to investigate the relationships between the linked scheduling aspects. The correlation coefficient (r) and coefficient of

determination (R2) were calculated using simple and multiple linear regressions and correlation. This calculation was done using the scheduling practice level assigned to each of the responses. The coefficient of correlation indicates the relationship between the scheduling aspects, and the coefficient of determination is a measure of goodness fitness of the variables. This gives an overall picture of the relationships among the 72

groups surveyed. 5.1.2 Regression and correlation analysis In order to establish the relationships between the scheduling aspects surveyed, simple and multiple linear regressions (least sum of squares) were used. Additionally R2 values were obtained to analyze the goodness of fit between the variables. Regression and correlation analysis are statistical techniques used extensively to examine relationships between variables. Regression and correlation measure the degree of relationship between two or more variables in two different but related ways. In regression analysis, a single dependent variable, Y, is considered to be a function of one or more variables, X1, X2, X3 Xi. Application of this statistical procedure to dependent and independent variables produces an equation that "best" approximates the relationship between the data observed. The general form of the equation is as seen below. y = a + 1 1 + 2 2 + 3 3 + [ 2 ( )2 ][ 2 ( )2 ] .

r=

Correlation analysis measures the degree of association between two or more variables. Parametric methods of correlation analysis assume that for any pair or set of values taken under a given set of conditions, variation in each of the variables is random and follows a normal distribution pattern. Using correlation analysis on dependent and independent variables produces a statistic called the correlation coefficient (r). The square of this statistical parameter (the coefficient of determination or R2) describes the 73

goodness of fit of the variables. A test of significance relates the probability of such correlation occurring by chance. A p<0.05 rejects the null hypothesis which states that there is no

significance, and hence indicates that the relationship found is significant and that the r-coefficient is not accidental. significance with p<0.05. The linkages marked with an asterisk (*) indicate

5.2 Relationship Identification Table 5.1 shows the selected relationships analyzed and combines the results obtained. The analyses of separate groups are presented in following sections.

Table 5.1 Selected relat ionships analyzed A-C-D Link A1-D1 A1-D6 A5-C1-5 A5-C6-9 A5-D1 A6-C1-5 A6-C6-9 A6-D1 r R2 Link B1-C1-5 B1-C6-9 B4-C1-5 B4-C6-9 B5-C1 B5-C2 B5-C3 B7-C1-5 B7-C6-9 0.10 0.01 0.17 0.06 -0.01 0.00 0.46* 0.21 0.25 0.06 0.06 0.00 B-C r 0.55* 0.38 0.24 0.37 0.22 0.10 0.30 0.36 0.30 R2 0.30 0.14 0.06 0.14 0.05 0.01 0.09 0.13 0.09 Link B-D r R2 Link C-D r R2 0.13 0.19 0.21 0.12 0.25 0.31

B1-D1 0.24 0.06 C1-5-D1 0.36 B1-D2 0.29 0.08 C1-5-D4 0.44* B1-D3 -0.01 0.00 C1-5-D5 0.46* B1-D4 0.02 0.00 C6-9-D1 0.35* B1-D5 0.22 0.05 C6-9-D4 0.50* B2-D1 0.10 0.01 C6-9-D5 0.56* B4-D2 0.10 0.01 B5-D1 0.45* 0.20 B7-D2 -0.10 0.01

(*) P-value < 0.05

Table 5.1 shows that overall there are moderate relationship between various aspects. The source of knowledge moderately (r=0.46) affects the use of basic scheduling processes (A6-C1-5), but such knowledge has a lower relationship (0.25) with the use of advance scheduling processes (C6-9). 74 This indicates that basic

scheduling processes are used most frequently and well by project participants. Similarly, the size of project (B1) has a moderate relationship with the use of basic scheduling processes (C1-5). This r=0.55 indicate that as project extend over

longer duration project participant have the opportunity to exercise scheduling. Nonetheless, the use of advance processes is still not used as the basic scheduling processes, in spite the duration of the projects. There is a moderate (r=0.45) relationship between the formality of project participants (B5) and the project delays (D1). Apparently this is a direct relationship,

the more formality the participants have toward scheduling the better the performance becomes. Table 5.1 shows that all scheduling processes (C) are moderately related

to the overall schedule performance (D).

5.2.1 General Information-Schedule Process and Performance Type of Organization and Year of Experience The analysis of the type of organization (A1) in relation to schedule performance (D1) and general satisfaction (D6) reveals interesting relationships. Belize has the lowest level in schedule performance (D1) with an average score of 2.0, but they are averagely satisfied with their schedule performance (3.1). This is relevant to the

finding in the initial survey, where it was found that the project participants have accepted and are satisfied with schedules delay in the construction industry. Table 5.2 also shows the relationship between the schedule performance (D1) and the overall satisfaction (D6). The R2 value of 0.2 shown in Table 5.2 indicates that there is a low

level of fitness between these two aspects, but correlation coefficient r shows a moderate relationship.

75

Table 5.2 Organizat io n, performance and years of experience

D1 Group Belize Owners Consultants Contractors Score 2.0 2.6 3.6 3.3 Score 3.1 2.9 3.1 3.3 D6 r R
2

A4 Score 2.8 3.3 2.9 3.1 r -0.19 0.04 0.08 0.09 R2 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01

0.45 0.20 0.53 0.28 0.26 0.07 0.30 0.09

For the groups in Taiwan, the levels for schedule performance (D1) and overall satisfaction (D6) are relatively closer. However, the correlation value shows that

within each group the schedule performance does not correlate highly with overall satisfaction. This can be interpreted as: there are individuals who think scheduling

should do more or others who think scheduling is doing enough for scheduling performance. Table 5.2 shows that though the level of years of experience (A4) and schedule performance (D1) has no relationship. A close examination indicates that the level of experience for the consultants is low, however their schedule performance is higher. Similarly, in the case of contractors, where their experience length is at 3.1, their schedule performance is higher with 3.3. A glance at the scores for owners shows that their level is higher in experience (3.3), however schedule performance is lower (2.6). This shows that the schedule performance is not linked directly with the years of experience, but the commitment and involvement in the project schedule.

Scheduling as Part of Job Description From Table 5.3 it was seen that whether scheduling was a major or minor of job (A5) description had no relationship with the project performance (D1). However

all groups regardless of practicing scheduling as a major or minor part of their job 76

description had moderate relationship with the use of scheduling process, both basic and advance.

Table 5.3 Schedule as part of jo b

A5 Group Belize Owners Consultants Contractors Score Score 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.5 3.0 2.9 3.4 3.1 C1-5 r R2 Score 3.0 2.5 3.2 3.3 C6-9 r R2 Score 2.0 2.6 3.6 3.3 D1 r R2

0.29 0.08 0.65 0.42 0.53 0.28 0.51 0.26

0.41 0.17 0.58 0.34 0.59 0.35 0.50 0.25

-0.32 0.10 -0.21 0.04 0.05 0.13 0.00 0.02

Source of Schedule Knowledge Looking at the Table 5.4, it can be seen that only the contractors in Taiwan have good relationship between the source of knowledge (A6) and the use of basic scheduling processes (C1-5). The R2 value = 0.61 for contractors in comparison with others is the highest. However looking at the average scores it can be seen the level in source of schedule knowledge (A6) is 2.6. But their level in usage of basic schedule processes (C1-5) is at 3.1, which is considered average. From the results for the use of advance scheduling processes, it can be seen that the contractors use more than the other groups. This outcome can be due to the need contractors have for control and monitoring in managing their projects. Table 5.4 shows however that overall there is a moderate correlation between the use of advance scheduling process and the source of knowledge.

77

Table 5.4 Source of knowledge, schedule processes and performance

A.6 Group Belize Owners Consultants Contractors Score 2.7 2.3 2.6 2.6 Score 3.0 2.9 3.4 3.1 C1-5 r 0.53 0.66 0.41 0.78 R
2

C6-9 Score 3.0 2.5 3.2 3.3 r 0.38 0.48 0.36 0.59 R
2

D1 Score 2.0 2.6 3.6 3.3 r 0.31 -0.05 -0.04 -0.06 R2 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.28 0.43 0.17 0.61

0.15 0.23 0.13 0.35

Table 5.4 also shows the relationship between the source of knowledge (A6) and the schedule performance (D1). Though consultants and contractors received formal scheduling training, and in spite their schedule performance being above their source of knowledge level, their responses have no relationship. Apparently, the source of scheduling knowledge has no effect on schedule performance. This indicates that it is the commitment of the participants that as a great effect on performance, as explained by Iyer and Jha (2009).

5.2.2 Project Environment Scheduling Process Average Project Duration The relationship between the duration of the project and the use of basic scheduling processes is shown in Table 5.5. It shows moderate to high relationships between the average project duration (B1) and the scheduling process (C1-9). It was

noted that the contractors group, had the highest correlation after Belize with R2 = 0.62. This infers that the contractors are the project participants that are making the most of the basic scheduling processes (C1-5).

78

Table 5.5 Project duratio n and scheduling processes Group Belize Owners Consultants Contractors B1 C1-5 Score Score r 2.5 2.9 4.3 3.7 3.0 2.9 3.4 3.1 0.79 0.66 0.49 0.68 C6-9 Score r 3.0 2.5 3.2 3.3 0.38 0.61 0.36 0.57

R2 0.14 0.37 0.13 0.32

0.62 0.43 0.24 0.47

The correlation values for project duration (B1) and advance scheduling processes (C6-9) are lower than those calculated for basic scheduling processes (C1-5). Basic processes are higher than advance because the advance processes are

not familiar to the participants and practiced in the industry. This shows that there is some influence of the project duration over the use of scheduling processes.

Owners Sophistication Owners sophistication is often considered as one of the factors affecting project success. Table 5.6 shows how the sophistication (B4) is related to the scheduling processes. Though the results for R2 are not high, there are subtle moderate to weak relationships. It shows that consultants and contractors consider that owners have a greater influence on the use of advance scheduling process. This can be argued that owners are usually involved in the monitoring of the project, hence the use of these scheduling processes. A comparison of the correlation coefficients shows moderate

effects on consultants and contractors by the use of advance scheduling processes. This corresponds with the initial findings, where owners stress control and monitoring scheduling techniques.

79

Table 5.6 Owner s sophist icat ion and scheduling processes

Group Belize Owners Consultants Contractors B4 Score 3.0 3.8 3.6 3.4 C1-5 Score r 3.0 0.54 2.9 3.4 3.1 0.70 0.22 0.46
2

R 0.29 0.49 0.05 0.21

C6-9 Score r 3.0 0.53 2.5 3.2 3.3 0.48 0.53 0.58

R2 0.28 0.23 0.28 0.33

Project Participants View toward Project Scheduling Table 5.7 shows that the Taiwanese project participants level of formality toward scheduling (B5) is higher than those in Belize; this is the same for the use of scheduling methods (C1). However, this formality does is not related to the use of scheduling methods. There is no consistency; the highest R2 value obtained was 0.10 for the consultants. This shows that there is a weak relationship between these two aspects.

Table 5.7 Formalit y and schedule methods, tools and WBS Group Belize Owners Consultants Contractors B5 C1 Score Score r 3.3 3.7 3.6 3.7 2.7 3.3 3.4 3.1 C2 r C3 Score r 3.3 2.2 3.5 2.9

Score 2.8 2.7 3.1 2.9

R2

0.03 0.00 0.20 0.04 0.31 0.10 0.23 0.05

0.00 0.00 0.15 0.02 -0.05 0.00 0.54 0.29

0.51 0.26 0.15 0.02 0.35 0.12 0.48 0.23

Similar scenario for use of scheduling tools, the levels are smaller than for the use of scheduling methods (C1). However the consultants and contractors retained a higher level in the use of scheduling tools. Moreover, assessing the R2 value, only the contractors show a degree of correlation with a value of 0.29. This indicates that contractors are the project participants that are using scheduling tools (C2) more, and appropriately with the level of view toward project scheduling. Given that only 80

contractors show a moderate relationship, it can be said project participant formality and scheduling tools relationship does not exist. Table 5.7 shows that use of WBS (C3) is more common amongst the consultants, however the degree of correlation amongst the respondents is not a high one, give that R2=0.12. WBS is least used by owners and followed by contractors. The lack of use of WBS by owners can be justified, for it is not their work. However the lack of use of WBS by the contractors cannot be justified given that they are directly linked with planning, updating and revising activities. Given the correlation coefficient values, it can be seen that there are weak relationships between these two aspects.

Schedule Specification Similarity Schedules specifications are often similar. This is inferred from the literature reviewed and is also seen from the results obtained. Table 5.8 shows that the

consultants obtained the highest score of 3.0 in schedule specifications (B7), this still implies that majority of the times their specifications are the same. Comparing this with the use of scheduling process, it can be observed that they have a higher level in scheduling processes. The correlation coefficients shown for consultants, owners and the Belize groups imply the specifications affect or relate to the use of basic scheduling processes. This relationship is moderately related.

Table 5.8 Specificat ion similarit y and scheduling processes B7 C1-5 r Score Score Belize 2.7 3.0 0.63 Owners 2.9 2.9 0.24 Consultants 3.0 3.4 0.69 Contractors 2.8 3.1 0.78 Group 81
2

R 0.40 0.06 0.48 0.61

C6-9 r Score 3.0 0.43 2.5 0.47 3.2 0.57 3.3 0.76

R2 0.18 0.22 0.32 0.58

However, for the contractor group obtaining an R2 =0.61, this indicates that similarity in specifications relates to the average use of basic scheduling processes. The same is noticed the use of advance scheduling processes. This relationship does not necessarily mean the use of scheduling processes is dependent on the scheduling specifications. But this can be interpreted as contractors being more aware of the problems in scheduling specifications, and the average use of scheduling processes.

5.2.3 Project Environment Schedule Performance Average Project Duration Table 5.9 shows that average project duration (B1) has no relationship with schedule performance (D1). As a project gets larger, schedule performance score gets better, but the R2 values show no correlation However, even though the cost spent on scheduling is little, there is a relationship between the project duration (B1) and scheduling cost (D2). Table 5.9 shows that in majority of the groups this correlation is little, but it is more significant for contractors with an r = 0.54 and R2 =0.30. This is because they spend more in project scheduling, see the Table 4.2 in chapter 4. Looking at Table 4.2 it is seen that Belize spends the

least on scheduling, here the r=-0.05 show that there is absolutely no relationship between these two scheduling aspects.

Table 5.9 Project duratio n, schedule performance and cost

Group Belize Owners Consultant Contractors B1 Score 2.5 2.9 4.3 3.7 D1 r -0.09 -0.16 -0.14 0.11 R2 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 D2 r -0.05 0.17 0.28 0.54 R2 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.30

Score 2.0 2.6 3.6 3.3

Score 2.2 1.9 2.6 2.2

82

It would be logical that as a project increases in size more planning would be involved. Looking at scores in Table 5.10, it seems as if this is so, the correlations This is similar to the improvement

between these aspects show weak relationships. of communications (D4).

The r= 0.47 and 0.42 in Table 5.10 suggest that in

planning (D3) and improvement of communication (D4) the consultants are capitalizing on their efforts. knowledge that they possess. Table 5.10 shows better relationships between the project duration (D1) and the use of schedule for time control (D5). These relationships are rather moderate, it It is This could be explained by the higher level of

seems that all groups consider scheduling to have a good use for time control.

noteworthy to point out that contractors responses are having a better correlation, moderate to high relationship. Table 5.10 Durat ion, planning, co mmunicat ion and t ime co ntrol
Group Belize Owners Consultant Contractors B1 Score 2.5 2.9 4.3 3.7 Score 3.7 3.1 3.3 3.1 D3 r -0.25 0.21 0.47 0.31 R 0.06 0.04 0.22 0.10
2

Score 3.9 3.4 3.5 3.4

D4 r -0.25 0.07 0.42 0.37

D5

R 0.06 0.01 0.18 0.14

Score 3.9 3.3 3.5 3.6

r 0.26 0.45 0.38 0.49

R2 0.07 0.21 0.14 0.24

Project Complexity Table 5.11 shows that as project participants consider project complexity (B2) to be a factor in projects, there is an increase in performance (D1). However, these

increases need to be properly considered given that there is no correlation between these two factors. This shows that the project participants are well aware of the

difficulty that project complexity poses on project duration.

83

Table 5.11 Pro ject complexit y and schedule performance

Group Belize Owners Consultant Contractors B2 Score 3.6 4.0 4.3 3.9 Score 2.0 2.6 3.6 3.3 D1 r 0.01 0.09 0.01 -0.27 R2 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.07

Owners Sophistication Table 5.12 shows that there is weak or no relationship between the owners sophistication and cost spent on scheduling.

Table 5.12 Owners sophist icat io n and cost spent on scheduling

Group Belize Owners Consultant Contractors B4 Score 3.0 3.8 3.6 3.4 Score 2.17 1.94 2.57 2.22 D2 r -0.06 0.20 0.30 0.10 R2 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.01

Project Participants View toward Scheduling Table 5.13 shows that the Taiwan project participants view project scheduling (B5) with more formality than their counter part in Belize. that they also have a better schedule performance (D1). Additionally, it is seen

The correlation value shows However this

that there is a direct relationship between these two aspects. relationship is better for the contractors.

Consultants view also correlate with the

scheduling with an R2=0.16, is moderately significant, but contractors have a higher relationship. This shows that consultants and contractors are prepared in execution

of project schedules.

84

Table 5.13 Project participants view and performance

Group Belize Owners Consultant Contractors B5 Score 3.3 3.7 3.6 3.7 Score 2.0 2.6 3.6 3.3 D1 r 0.55 0.14 0.40 0.66 R2 0.31 0.02 0.16 0.43

Schedule specifications (B7) do not dictate the cost spent (D2) on project schedules. This can because although scheduling specifications contain the

guidelines for scheduling they are not enforced. This is common in Belize, however from the responses obtained: it appears Taiwan to be suffering similar problems. Table 5.14 shows that there is not relationship between the cost spent on schedules and specifications.

Table 5.14 Project specificat ions similarit y and cost

B7 Score 2.7 2.9 3.0 2.8 D2 r 0.19 -0.37 -0.23 -0.34 R2 0.04 0.13 0.05 0.11

Group Belize Owners Consultant Contractors

Score 2.2 1.9 2.6 2.2

5.2.4 Scheduling Process Schedule Performance Basic Scheduling Processes Table 5.15 shows that the basic scheduling tools (C1-5) and the schedule performance (D1) are almost at the same levels. The average scores are almost at

the same level however the correlation found shows that the relationships all more moderately relate to each other. The consultant responses correlate better, than the

85

owners and Belize respondents, with an R2 =0.29.

This indicates that the consultants

are more proficient in the use of scheduling methods and tools, and hence acquiring a high level in schedule performance. However, the contractors make better use of

these scheduling methods and tool for project performance, communicating the project scope amongst other project participants and for time control.

Table 5.15 Basic processes, performance, communicat ion and t ime control
Group Belize Owners Consultants Contractors C1-5 Score 3.0 2.9 3.4 3.1 D1 r D4 r D5 r Score 3.9 3.3 3.5 3.6

Score 2.0 2.6 3.6 3.3

Score 3.9 3.4 3.5 3.4

R2

0.47 0.22 0.50 0.25 0.46 0.21 0.54 0.29

0.55 0.30 0.45 0.20 0.57 0.32 0.77 0.59

0.62 0.39 0.46 0.21 0.62 0.39 0.82 0.67

Table 5.15 shows that the use of basic scheduling process for the development of project schedule is linked with the ability of the project participant to use the developed schedule for time control. However again, the contractors show a better

linkage between these two aspects of project scheduling. This means that the basic scheduling processes are linked with the overall schedule performance, but they are dependent on the project participants.

Advance Scheduling Processes Advance scheduling processes (C6-9) are associated with control and monitoring (D5) of construction project. the following tables. It is therefore not surprising to see results presented in

Table 5.16 shows in comparison of the results found in table

5.15, here the contractors show that by using advance scheduling processes they are 86

able to achieve better performance.

The R2=0.67 shows contractors are making

more use of controlling and monitoring processes, which yield better results. Similarly, Table 5.16 shows that communications are also improved through the use of advance scheduling processes by the project participants. The Belize and owners group increase communications by the use of advance scheduling processes. 5.16. This can be seen by comparing the correlation values in Table

Table 5.16 Advance processes, performance, communicat ion and t ime control
Group Belize Owners Consultants Contractors C6-9 Score 3.0 2.5 3.2 3.3 D1 Score r 2.0 2.6 3.6 3.3 0.48 0.36 0.41 0.82 D4 r 0.62 0.52 0.51 0.76 D5 Score r 3.9 3.3 3.5 3.6 0.55 0.53 0.52 0.76

Score 3.9 3.4 3.5 3.4

R2 0.31 0.28 0.27 0.58

0.23 0.13 0.17 0.67

0.39 0.27 0.26 0.58

Table 5.16 shows that the owners get a better score by using advance scheduling processes, however the relationship between these aspects are only moderately linked. This can be explained by their role in monitoring the execution as project progresses. Note that the only group that scored higher here are the contractors with an average of 3.3, in comparison to the 3.1 found in Table 5.15. This shows that contractors are by far more driven to the control of schedule performance.

87

88

CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This research was done in four main processes. It started with the reviewing of schedule performance related literature after which an initial survey was carried out. This help indentifying and understanding the problems related to the scheduling processes. A questionnaire was then elaborated and sent out gather information. questionnaire was sent out to Belize and Taiwan. This

The responses gathered were

sorted and statistically analyzed using regression and correlation to determine the relationship between scheduling aspects. Based on the analysis that was done on the respondents view of the scheduling practice, conclusions were drawn and recommendations are given in this chapter with the purpose of increasing performance by identifying the gaps in the practice. 6.1 Conclusions The following conclusions made are: 1. The project size or duration appears to have an influence over the use of scheduling process and the effectiveness of scheduling use for communication and time control. 2. Schedule performance is not much dependent on the formality of the participants toward scheduling. It is seen that it is, though not highly dependent on their involvement in the project schedule, more in its development, control or monitoring. 89

3. Schedule performance is not fully dependent on the scheduling process maturity, but the maturity of formality of the project participants is a determining factor. 4. Of all the groups, the contractors seem to be group utilizing the schedule methods and tools better, given that their use of basic and advance scheduling processes have a better relationship than the other groups. 5. Linkage between the responses corresponding to the questions referring to schedule specifications and project delays was not evident. Apparently, the inclusion of schedule specifications is just a formality in both countries. 6. Moderate linkage exists between the scheduling process maturity and schedule performance. 7. Regarding the project delays, there are other factors which are involved regardless of the application of proper methodology and techniques. The owners view and sophistication is a great factor to consider, though their relationships in this survey were not significant. 8. Belizes scheduling maturity is lower than Taiwans. This mainly because the project participants are overwhelmed by the uncertainty of the industry, that delays are an acceptable part of the construction process. 6.2 Recommendations This research came across some suggestions, which can be taken into consideration in future research. These are: 1. Collect a larger data sample. Larger sample may be helpful in revealing trends with more significance in the construction industry. 2. Apply similar research to specific executed project that have achieved a good schedule performance. 90

3. The linkage between the scheduling process and the schedule performance in this research yield a moderate relationship. This research can be modified and applied to only contractors or consultants in interviews to see the significance of research.

Some shortcomings were observed of the professionals involved in the construction industry. These can be improved by the following suggestions: 1. Project team members should be involved in project scheduling. The more it is practiced, the more it is understood. Training that emphasizes the scheduling theory and knowledge is necessary before attempting the application of scheduling software. 2. Project participants are recommended to move away from non-scheduling software to the generally accepted software (MS project/Primavera) to enhance communications and cooperation between all those involved. 3. Cost towards scheduling should increase taking into consideration the trade-offs involved. Increasing these expenditures will not yield immediate scheduling

performance increase, but will after the project team has being trained. Thereafter, the scheduling may possible decrease, but not until a higher level of scheduling maturity has been achieved.

91

92

REFERENCES

1. AACE International (2006). Recommended Practice No. 14R-90: Responsibility and Required Skills for a Project Planning and Scheduling Professional. pp. 1-16. 2. AACE International (2009a). Recommended Practice No. 48R-06: Schedule Constructability Review. pp. 1-10. 3. AACE International (2009b). Recommended Practice No. 38R-06: Documenting the Scheduling Basis. pp. 1-11. 4. AACE International (2010). Recommended Practice No.37R-06: Scheduling Levels of Detail As Applied in Engineering, Procurement and Construction. pp. 1-7. 5. Ballast, Leaf A., and Popescu, Calin M. (2001). Selecting Planning and Scheduling Specifications. AACE International Transactions PS.01.1-07. 6. Barber, E. (2004). Benchmarking the management of projects: a review of current thinking. International Journal of Project Management, 22, pp. 301-307. 7. Bradley, M. (2005). Scheduling Specifications: A Lump Sum Contractors Perspective. AACE International Transaction, PS.11.1-11.4. 8. Baccarini, David. (1996). The concept of Project complexity a review. International Journal of Project Management, 14, pp. 201-204. 9. Buziak, John P. (2008). The Problem with hiring a Scheduler. AACE International, PS.06. 10. Cole, L. J. R. (1991) Construction Scheduling: Principles, Practices, and Six Case Studies. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 117 , No. 4, pp. 579-587. 11. Chan, Albert P.C., Scott, D., and Chang, Ada P.L. (2004). Factors Affecting the Success of a Construction Project. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 130, No. 1, pp. 153-155. 12. Chen L. and Mohamed, S. (2006).
Impact

of organizational cultural factors on

knowledge management in construction. The British University in Dubai. 13. Dos Santos, A. (2002). Evolution of Management Theory: The case of production management in construction. Management Decision, 40/8, pg 788-796. 93

14. Galloway, Patricia D. (2006a). Survey of the Construction Industry Relative to the Use of CPM Scheduling for Construction Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 132, No. 7, pp. 697-711. 15. Galloway, Patricia D. (2006b). Comparative Study of University Courses on Critical Path Method Scheduling. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 132, No. 7, pp. 712-722. 16. Gareis, R., and Huemann, M. (2000). Project Management Competences in the Project-oriented Organization. The Gower Handbook of Project Management, pp 709-721. 17. Glenwright, Earl T. (2004). Lets Scrap the Precedence Diagramming Method. AACE International Transactions, PS.08. 18. Griffith, Andrew F. (2005). Scheduling Practices and Project Success. AACE International Transaction, PS. 05.1-8. 19. Hinze, Jimmie W. (2008). Construction Planning and Scheduling, Pearson International Edition, New Jersey. 20. Herroelen, W. (2005). Project Scheduling: Theory and Practice. Production and Operation Management Society, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 413-432 21. Ibbs, C. W., and Kwak, Y. H. (1997). Financial and Organizational Impacts of Project Management. Project Management Institute28th Annual Seminar and Symposium. 22. Ibbs, C. William and Reginato (2002). Measuring the Strategic Value of Project Management. University of California, pp. 1-10. 23. Iyer, K. C., and Jha, K.N. (2006). Critical Factors Affecting Scheduling Performance: Evidence from Indian Construction Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 132, No. 8, pp. 871-881. 24. Kernzner, H. (2009). Project Management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling, John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey. 25. Kwak, Y. H., and Ibbs, C. W. (2002). Project Management Process Maturity (PM2) Model. Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 150-155. 26. Kwak, Y. H., and Ibbs, C. W. (2000). Berkeley project management maturity model Measuring the value of Project Management. IEEE, EMS, International Engineering Management Conf., pp. 1-5. 94

27. Kim, J., Kyunghwan, J., Namyong, Y., and Yungsang. (2005). Enhanced Resource Leveling Techniques for Project Scheduling. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 461-466. 28. Kuruoglu, M., and Ergen, E. (2002). The Effects of Economic Development on Project Management in Developing Countries. Instanbul Technical University, Turkey. 29. Levin, P. (2006). Schedule Specification for 21st Century. AACE international Transactions, PS.18.1-4. 30. Long, N. D., Ogunlana, S., Quang, T., and Chi, L. K. (2004), Large Construction Project in Developing Countries: A Case Study from Vietnam. International Journal of Project Management, 22, pp. 553-561. 31. Lu, M., and Li, H. (2003). Resource-Activity Critical-Path Method for Construction Planning. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 129, No. 4, pp 412-420. 32. Nassar, K. M., and Hegab, M. Y. (2006). Developing a Complexity Measure for Project Schedule. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 132, No. 6, pp. 554-561. 33. Nepal, M. P., Park, M., and Son, B. (2006). Effects of Schedule Pressure on Construction Performance. Journal of Construction Engineering and

Management, Vol. 132, No. 2, pp. 182-188. 34. Nima, M., Abdul-Kadir, M. R., Jaafar, M. S., and Alghulami, R. G. (2002) Constructability Concepts in West Port Highway in Malaysia. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 128, No. 4, pp 348-356. 35. Odeh, A. M., and Battaineh, H. T. (2002). Causes of Construction Delay: Traditional Contracts. International Journal of Project Management, 20 pp. 67-73. 36. Project Management Institute. (2007) Practice Standard for scheduling. PMI Inc. 37. Project Management Institute ( 2004). A guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, 2004 ed., Newtown Square, Pa.. 38. Sappe, R. (2007). A schedule Success: Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Airports Runway Delivered 11 Days Early and $102 Million under Budget. Cost Engineering, Vol. 49, No. 4, pp. 21-23. 95

39. Son, J, and Rojas, E. M. (2011). Impact of Optimism Bias Regarding Organizational Dynamics on Project Planning and Control. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 137, No. 2, pp 147-157. 40. Uher, T. E. (2003). Programming and scheduling techniques. University of New South Wales. 41. Vidal, L. A., and Marle, F. (2008). Understanding Project Complexity: Implications on Project Management. Emeral Group, Kybernetes, Vol.37, No. 8 pp.1094-1110. 42. Warhoe, S. P. (2009). Schedule Specification Handle with Care. Cost Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 3-4.

96

Appendix A:

Initial Survey Questions about Scheduling Problems

List of questions: 1. On Project Scheduling what are the critical factors that you are faced with? 2. What scheduling methods or tools do you commonly use to create your project schedules? Why do you use it? Do you know any other method? Does it provide you with all the necessary information for you to carry out its smooth implementation? 3. Do you meet with project participants in a project as an initial step to develop the project schedule? 4. When dealing with project participants, which of the following and how do they affect your schedule. i. Owners ii. Designer/Consultants iii. Contractor/sub-contractor iv. Suppliers 5. Would you say that actually delays are inevitable, and if so what are the main reasons for such delays? What you thinks need to be done to alleviate these delays. 6. Do you have a specific person assigned to the development of project schedules? 7. How much attention do you focus on project schedule from a scale of 1-10? a. Do you think that it is enough? b. What do you think can be done differently? 8. Is there a consensus in your company that project schedule is important and why? i. Do you allocate a part of the project budget toward scheduling control during the life cycle of the project? ii. Do you think that the same site engineer should be capable to carry out the schedule? iii. Or do you think that a different person is required to form part of the site team to do all the resource allocation leveling and procurement? 9. During a project, how often do you update and revise your project schedule? What actions and repercussion follow a delay? Who pays for the delay and how do you determine that? 10. Which do you find to be more troublesome, project planning or scheduling?

97

Appendix B: Questionnaire (English Version)

Scheduling Practice Questionnaire April 2011 This questionnaire surveys the scheduling practice in the construction industry. The results will be analyzed to improve schedule management. Please choose only one answer for each question. Your completing the 30 short questions is very much appreciated. Researchers: Jose Divas, Der Kai Chou, Prof. Andrew S. Chang, Civil Engineering Department, Cheng Kung University, Taiwan

A. General Information 1. What type of organization are you in? _____Government or private owner _____Engineering consulting firm _____Contractor (civil & architecture) _____Contractor (electrical & mechanical) _____Other __________ 2. What is the relative size of your organization? _____Small _____Smallmedium _____Medium _____ Large 3. What position do you hold in your organization? _____Department manager _____Project manager _____Staff position _____Other ______________ 4. Years of your experience: ____5 _____6 10 _____1115 _____1620 _____ 20 5. Scheduling is your: _____Major job _____Minor job _____Not part of your job 6. How was your schedule knowledge obtained: _____Self-learned _____On the job training _____Training courses _____Undergraduate or graduate courses _____ Others _________________

_____Mediumlarge

_____Engineer

B. Project Environments 1. What is roughly the duration of the projects you have seen? _____ 6 months _____6 months 1 year _____1 year 2 years _____2 98

years 3 years _____ 3 years 2. Does project complexity increase the effort and time devoted to project schedule? _____Not at all _____Seldom _____Sometimes _____Usually _____ Mostly 3. How does the owner see the USE of the project schedule? ____Very informal ____Informal _____ Moderately formal _____Formal ____ Very formal 4. Do you think that the owners schedule knowledge and experience affect the schedule management of the project? _____Very little _____Little _____Medium _____Much _____ Very much 5. How do project participants see project planning and scheduling? ____Very informal ____Informal _____ Moderately formal _____ Very formal

_____Formal

6. Is there sufficient planning done prior to schedule development? _____Not at all _____Seldom _____Sometimes _____Usually _____ Mostly 7. Are schedule specifications similar for all projects? _____ Mostly _____ Usually _____Sometimes _____ Seldom _____ Not at all 8. Do the schedule requirements in the specifications affect the scheduling process? _____Not at all _____Seldom _____Sometimes _____Usually _____ Mostly

C. Scheduling Process 1. What type of the scheduling method is often used on the project? _____List of activities _____Calendar _____ Bar Chart _____ ADM or PDM network _____ Others _____________ 2. What scheduling tool is often used on the project? _____AutoCAD _____Excel/Visio _____MS Project _____Others ____

_____Primavera

3. Is the work break-down structure (WBS) used to identify project activities? _____Never _____Seldom _____Sometimes _____Usually _____ Often 4. Are relationships other than finishstart used to sequence activities when using PDM scheduling method? _____Never _____Seldom _____Sometimes _____Usually _____ Often 5. Are CPM techniques used to schedule activities? _____Never _____Seldom _____Sometimes _____Usually _____ Often 6. Are resource loading (material, labor and/or equipment) used on the schedule? 99

_____Never _____Seldom _____Sometimes _____Usually _____ Often 7. Is earned value analysis (EVA) part of the project control technique? _____Never _____Seldom _____Sometimes _____Usually _____ Often 8. How often is the project schedule updated? _____No updates _____Once or twice during the project period _____ Every 3 months _____Every month _____ Every one or two weeks

9. Is the time to complete estimated when updating the schedule? _____Never _____Seldom _____Sometimes _____Usually _____ Often

D. Schedule Performance 1. What is average percentage of schedule delay of the projects you have seen? ____10% ____79% ____46% ____13% _____1% or ahead of time 2. What is the cost spent for working on schedules? _____ Very little _____Little _____Medium _____Much _____ Very much If the project overhead is 10% of the construction cost, the cost for working on schedules is about __________ % 3. Do you think the developed schedule is a result of good initial planning? _____Not at all _____Seldom ____Sometimes _____Usually _____ Mostly 4. Do you think the use of schedule improve communication? _____Not at all _____Seldom _____Sometimes ____Usually _____ Mostly 5. Do you think the schedule is well used for time control? _____Not at all _____Seldom _____Sometimes _____Usually _____ Mostly 6. Overall, how satisfactory are you with the scheduling practice of your projects? _____ Very little _____Little _____Medium _____Much _____ Very much 7. Any observations or suggestions to this survey:

Thank you very much for your time!

100

Appendix C: Questionnaire () 100 4 Jose Divas, A. 1. ? _____ _____ _____ ( & ) _____ ( & ) _____ __________ 2. ? _____ _____ _____ _____ _____

3. ? _____ _______ 4. : _____5

_____

_____

_____

_____

_____6 10

_____1115

_____1620

_____ 20

5. : _____ _____ _____

6. : _____ _____ _____ ____ B.

_____

_____

1. _____ 6 _____6 1 _____ 3 101

_____1 2 _____2 3

2. ? _____ _____ _____ _____ 3. ? ____ ____ _____ _____ _____

_____

4. ? _____ _____ _____ _____ _____

5. ? ____ ____ _____ 6. ? _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____

7. ? _____ _____ _____ _____ _____

8. ? _____ _____ __________ _____

C. 1. ? _____ _____ _____ (PDM) _____ _____________

_____ (ADM) or

2. ? _____AutoCAD _____Excel/Visio _____MS Project_____P3_____ ____ 3. (WBS) ? _____ _____ __________ _____ 4. - (Finish-Start, FS)? _____ _____ __________ _____ 5. ? _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 102

6. ? _____ _____ __________ _____ 7. (earned value) ? _____ _____ __________ _____ 8. ? _____ _____ _____ _____ _____

9. ? _____ _____ __________ _____ D. 1. ? ____10% ____79% ____46% ____13% _____1%

2. ? _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 10%_____ % 3. ? _____ _____ _________ _____ 4. ? _____ _____ _________ _____ 5. ? _____ _____ __________ _____ 6. ? _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ E. _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ 103

Appendix C: Summary of Questionnaire Survey Results

Belize Part General Information No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 Project Environment 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 Scheduling 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Schedule Performance 2 3 4 5 6 Questions What type of organization are you in? What is the relative size of your organization? What position do you hold in your organization? Years of your experience: Scheduling is your: How was your schedule knowledge obtained: What is roughly the duration of the projects you have seen? Does project complexity increase the effort and time devoted to project schedule? How do clients see the USE of the project schedule? Do you think that the clients scheduling knowledge and experience affect the schedule management of the project? How do project participants see project planning and scheduling? Is there sufficient planning done prior to schedule development? Are schedule specifications similar for all projects? Do the schedule requirements in the specifications affect the scheduling process? What type of scheduling method is often used on the project? What scheduling tool is often used on project scheduling? Is the work break-down structure (WBS) used to identify project activities? Are relationships other than finishstart used to sequence activities? Are CPM techniques used to schedule activities? Is resource loading (material, labor and/or equipment) used on the schedule? Is earned value analysis (EVA) part of the project control technique? How often is the project schedule updated? Is the time to complete estimated when updating the schedule? What is average percentage of schedule delay of the projects you have seen? What is the cost spent for working on schedules? Do you think the developed schedule is a result of good planning? Do you think the use of schedule improve communication? Do you think the schedule is well used for time control? Overall, how satisfied are you with the scheduling practice of your projects? Total Average (Part B, C & D)
score/ Q score/ P

Owners
score/ Q score/ P

Consultants
score/ Q score/ P

Contractors
score/ Q score/ P

1.83 2.90 2.72 2.79 1.66 2.72 2.48 3.55 3.00 2.97 3.06 3.28 3.24 2.69 3.28 2.66 2.76 3.31 3.24 2.93 3.17 2.38 3.17 3.28 2.03 2.17 3.72 3.13 3.90 3.90 3.07 3.06 2.99 2.44

1.00 3.89 3.28 3.28 1.56 2.28 2.89 4.00 3.67 3.78 3.50 3.72 3.39 2.89 3.67 3.33 2.67 2.17 2.78 3.33 2.11 1.83 2.78 3.44 2.56 1.94 3.11 2.88 3.44 3.33 2.89 3.03 2.72 2.55

2.00 4.50 3.00 2.89 1.71 2.61 4.32 4.29 3.86 3.61 3.71 3.64 3.50 2.96 3.46 3.39 3.07 3.48 3.39 3.64 2.89 2.75 3.14 3.96 3.61 2.57 3.29 3.27 3.46 3.54 3.14 3.43 3.30 2.79

3.11 2.50 2.56 3.06 1.50 2.56 3.72 3.89 3.67 3.39 3.53 3.67 3.56 2.78 3.61 3.11 2.78 2.89 3.17 3.50 2.89 2.89 3.61 3.83 3.28 2.22 3.11 3.16 3.44 3.61 3.28 3.29 3.19 2.55

104