Sustainable Building Conference 2013

Coventry University

ADDRESSING CRUCIAL RISK FACTORS IN THE MIDDLE EAST

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SAUDI
ARABIA AND JORDAN
Abdullah Albogamy, Darren Scott, Nashwan Dawood, Ghanim Bekr

Teesside University, School of Science & Engineering

Teesside University, TS1 3BA, UK
e-mail: A.Albogamy@tees.ac.uk, Darren.Scott@tees.ac.uk, N.N.Dawood@tees.ac.uk

University of Applied Science, Faculty of Engineering

University of Applied Science, Amman, Jordan
e-mail: Ghanimbekr@yahoo.com

Abstract. Delay is a key issue in the construction industry globally and the Middle East
countries are no exception. Studies of several researchers in the Middle East region have
reported that 70% of all public sector construction projects fail to complete on time. This
paper documents the results from an investigation into several delay factors in the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Jordan. The primary data was gathered via questionnaire, by
including a list of 63 crucial delay factors and asking respondents to rank each factor
according to its frequency of occurrence and degree of impact. The findings are the ranking
differences in each country. In addition, it is also found through critical analysis of delay
factors that factors extracted using factor analysis are extremely crucial at this time and need
to be addressed urgently to avoid further time overruns. The work reported in this paper is
part of a PhD study which aims to outline the main causes of delay in public building projects
and to develop a risk management framework to mitigate the impact of those delay factors for
sustainable building construction.
Keywords causes of delay, risk management framework, Middle East
1 INTRODUCTION
One of the most critical problems of construction industries in developing countries is
construction delays (Sweis et al., 2007) that often hinder sustainable construction. The key
challenge for construction companies today is to complete projects on time and within the
estimated budget. Over the past two decades, construction activities have increased rapidly in
developing countries, particularly in the Gulf region as the governments of those countries
have announced substantial spending on infrastructure improvement (Samba Financial Group,
2012). On the other hand, however, the issue of delay has created a negative image for the
industry. This study aims to outline the main causes of delay in public building projects in
Middle East countries with particular focus on the KSA and Jordanian construction industries.
In this paper, the ranking results of the causes of delay factors in the KSA are first compared
to Jordan, and then factor and correlation analysis is conducted to find the most crucial factors
at this time.

118

Abdullah Albogamy, Darren Scott, Nashwan Dawood and Ghanim Bekr

2 BACKGROUND STUDIES
Many researchers from different countries have found several reasons for the delays in
construction projects. For instance, Assaf et al. (1995) identified 56 key delay factors that
were destroying the fabric of the construction industry in Saudi Arabia as cankerworm.
They concluded that changes in design and order, payment delays, and shop drawings were
the most significant contractor-related delay factors. Similarly, financing issues, conflict
between contractor and consultant, slow decision making from the owner, bureaucracy issues,
unskilled labour, and errors in infrastructural design were the other prominent factors that
were adversely affecting the construction industry in the KSA. Another study related to Saudi
Arabia identified three crucial delay factors, namely problems in obtaining work permits from
government and authorities, a low-bid tendering system, and cash-flow problems (Al-Khalil
and Al-Ghafly, 1999).
Faridi and El-Sayegh (2006) studied the causes of delay in the building projects of the
UAE. They found that the top five critical factors causing delay were: (1) drawing preparation
and approval; (2) inadequate and poor planning; (3) lack of quick decision making from the
owner; (4) lack of manpower; and (5) lack of proper supervision and management. Similarly,
Sweis et al. (2007) outlined five major factors causing delays in the Jordanian construction
industry. They were: financial difficulties faced by the contractors; many changes in orders
from the client; poor planning and scheduling by the contractor; unskilled labour; and a
shortage of technical and skilled professionals.
Razek et al. (2008) from Egypt found that inadequate and improper planning,
inexperienced and unskilled contractors, a lack of contract management, and payment delays
were the critical delay factors. Similarly, Frimpong et al. (2003) studied the causes of delay in
construction projects in Ghana and concluded that financial problems and modifications in the
scope of projects were the most influencing factors causing delays. Doloi et al. (2011)
outlined many factors causing delays in the Indian construction industry. The top five factors
were: delays in material delivery by vendors; late availability of drawings/designs; financial
constraints of the contractor; an increase in the scope of work; and obtaining permissions
from local authorities. It is learned from the above studies that delay is a common problem
that construction industries in the Middle Eastern countries are facing over a long period of
time. Although, the causes of delay are different in each country but they ultimately result in
cost and time overrun and consequently obstruct sustainable construction.
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The positivism philosophical paradigm is chosen to conduct this research. Using positivism
paradigm, the researchers quantitative addressed research objectives using survey method. On
the other hand, the descriptive research design is employed to explain the causes of delay and
their possible impact on construction industries in Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The scope of this
research paper is limited to public building projects, and a mixture of primary and secondary
data is used to identify major causes of delays in the construction industries of the KSA and
Jordan. A combination of qualitative and quantitative methods is adopted by looking at the
nature of the study. The qualitative approach is chosen to observe the behaviour of
construction participants, as well as the patterns, processes and themes of the construction
process using literature review. On the contrary, the quantitative approach is employed to

119

Abdullah Albogamy, Darren Scott, Nashwan Dawood and Ghanim Bekr

analyse the data of delay factors collected through surveys from construction participants in
the KSA and Jordan.
3.1 Population
The population of this study is based on construction participants (i.e. owners, contractors,
consultants and project managers) in Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Construction professionals and
parties with more than 10 years experience were chosen through sampling method using the
following formula:
S = CL2 EP (1 - EP) / CI2

(1)

Where, S = Sample size required, CL = Confidence level, EP = Estimated prevalence of

malnutrition, CI = Confidence interval
3.2 Procedure
The survey method was adopted to identify and inform the most critical delay factors
hindering on-time completion of construction projects in the KSA and Jordan. The
questionnaire method was mainly used to record the opinions of construction participants
from the KSA and Jordan against each delay factor on the basis of its degree of occurrence
and impact on construction projects. Consequently, this helped the researchers to rank the
delay factors. Table 1 states the number of questionnaires distributed and received.
Participants
Owner
Contractor
Consultant
Total

Saudi Arabia
Distributed
Received
72
38
47
29
63
31
182
98

Jordan
Distributed
Received
50
32
50
37
50
35
150
104

Table 1: Respondents profile

The respondents were asked to rank each delay factor according to its frequency of
occurrence and degree of impact on projects. The data collected from the questionnaire was
analysed in two ways: (1) ranking of delay factors; and (2) critical analysis of the delay
factors. Many researchers (e.g. Assaf et al., 1995; Kumaraswamy and Chan, 1998; Iyer and
Jha, 2005; Faridi and El-Sayegh, 2006) believe that rating factors according to their means
and standard deviations is not an appropriate way to assess overall rankings because in this
way the relationships between factors are not reflected. In contrast, other techniques such as
weighted average and relative index are commonly used for ranking but do not take into
account both the frequency and the impact of each factor. Thus, the researchers used Relative
Importance Index (RII) method to rank each delay factor on the basis of its frequency of
occurrence as well as the degree of impact. The detail of the formula is as follows:
Importance Index = (Freq. Index Severity Index) / 100

(2)

Freq. Index (F.I.) = [c. (a/A)] 100/5

Severity Index (S.I) = [c. (a/A)] 100/5

(3)

Where,

120

Abdullah Albogamy, Darren Scott, Nashwan Dawood and Ghanim Bekr

c is a constant of weighting given to each response (0=unknown, 1=never, 2=low, 3=middle

and 4=high), a is the frequency of responses, and A is the total number of responses for
this research.
The delay factors were then analysed quantitatively using three statistical techniques which
included factor analysis, correlation analysis and reliability analysis. The factor and
correlation analyses were performed to extract the most significant factors causing delay and
to find the relationship between several seemingly related and unrelated delay factors. Finally,
reliability analysis was performed to cross check if the purpose of factor analysis was fulfilled
and if it was measured correctly. The Cronbachs alpha (C) test using SPSS was used for
reliability analysis.
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Ranking of delay factors
A total of 63 factors were identified from various sources and included in the
questionnaire. Respondents were asked to rank each delay factor according to its frequency of
occurrence as well as the degree of impact. RII technique, which has previously been used by
several researchers in the past, was used to rank delay factors. Some researchers who have
used this technique to rank construction delays are Aibinu and Jagboro (2002), Assaf and AlHejji (2006), Sambasivan and Soon (2006), and Doloi et al. (2011). Table 2 illustrates the top
10 causes of delay according to the ranking results.
Causes of Delay
Low performance of lowest-bidder contractor in tendering
system
Delay in sub-contractors work
Poor qualifications, skills and experience of the contractors
technical staff
Poor planning and scheduling of the project by the contractor
Delay in progress payments by the owner
Design changes by the owner
Shortage of qualified engineers
Delay in preparation of shop drawings
Cash-flow problems faced by the contractor
Inadequate early planning of the project

Ranking Ranking
KSA
Jordan
1

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

4
2
3
10
7
6
5

Table 2: Delay Factors

4.2 Factor analysis

Factor analysis is a popular multivariate analytical technique for identifying strong
relationships among variables. In this study, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was
conducted because it is based on the common factor model and is useful for identifying
seemingly related and unrelated factors (Doloi, 2009). The first step in EFA was to identify
and display delay factors in the data matrix, which is a collection of figures arranged into one
or more columns and rows (Reymont and Joreskog, 1993). At the next stage, to assess the

121

Abdullah Albogamy, Darren Scott, Nashwan Dawood and Ghanim Bekr

sufficiency of the questionnaire data for factor analysis, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test
was carried out. A KMO value near to 1 represents a strong correlation and reliability
between attributes. The overall KMO value of the total of 31 extracted attributes is 0.704,
which is considered good.
In this research, 31 out of 63 significant factors were extracted using the Principal
Components (PC) method. PC method was preferred because it analyses all variances in the
items as well as helping the researcher to minimise several correlated delay factors into a
smaller number of underlying factors (Wenbin, 2008).
Facto
r ID

Factor Description

Factor I Material related

M37
Delay in materials supply
M58
Rise in the prices of materials
M38
Material quality problems
M39
Shortage of construction material
Factor II Project related
P1
Inadequate early planning of the project
P36
Shortage of equipment availability
P53
Lack of systematic engineering method to identify the time
P15
Low performance of the lowest-bidder contractor in the
Government Tendering System
P35
Poor manpower productivity
Factor III Contractor related
CT27 Poor site management and supervision by contractor
CT25 Poor communication by contractor with parties involved in
project
CT19 Poor qualifications, skills & experience of contractor technical
staff
CT32 Shortage of qualified engineers
CT18 Poor planning and scheduling of the project by the contractor
Factor IV Owner related
O9
Lack of coordination with contractors
O6
Delay in the approval of contractor submittals to the owner
O7
Changes in the scope of the project
O10
Breach or modifications of contract by owner
O13
Poor qualifications and supervision of owners engineer
O5
Slow decision-making process of the owner
Factor V Consultant related
CN49 Poor qualifications of supervisory staff of the consultant
engineer
CN42 Delay in approval of shop drawings
CN43 Absence of consultants site staff
CN41 Inadequate qualifications of consultant to the project
Factor VI Design related

122

Factor
Loadin
g

Variance
Explaine
d

0.769
0.759
0.741
0.540

10.58%

0.759
0.744
0.713

10.97%

0.625
0.606
0.762

10.92%

0.703
0.687
0.661
0.608
0.682
0.633
0.632
0.623
0.614
0.609

11.65%

10.81%
0.827
0.806
0.722
0.712

Abdullah Albogamy, Darren Scott, Nashwan Dawood and Ghanim Bekr

D45
D44
D51

Design errors by consultant

Design changes by consultant
Design errors made by designers due to unfamiliarity with
local conditions and environment
D11
Design changes by the owner
Factor VII External related
E63
External work due to public agencies
E59
Changes in Laws or regulations by Government
E55
Effect of weather conditions on construction activities

0.848
0.845

8.67%

0.688
0.621
0.834
0.743
0.624

7.12%

Overall KMO value = 0.704

Table 3: Factor analysis

4.3 Discussion on extracted factors

4.3.1
Factor I - material-related indicates the issues related to materials that often
cause delays in the construction industry. In Table 2, the four most significant material-related
attributes are extracted, with a total variance explained of 10.58%. The factor loadings of
material-related attributes range from 0.540 to 0.769 where the values of three attributes are
more than 0.7. The first and fourth attributes, i.e. delay of material supply and shortage of
construction materials, have great significance in terms of time overrun in the construction
process. The second attribute rise in the prices of raw materials may result in an increase in
the cost of the whole construction project. The third attribute material quality problem is a
very serious matter for construction parties and, according to Lewry and Crewdson (1994),
construction participants must not compromise on this issue. Overall, ignoring materialrelated factors may adversely affect the whole construction project.
4.3.2
Factor II - project-related highlights the problems associated with different
aspects and levels of a construction project. Five project-related attributes are extracted in
Table 2 with an appropriate variance explained value of 10.97%. The first attribute
inadequate early planning of the project, with the highest factor loading value of 0.759, is
one of the vital reasons of delay which is normally ignored by the construction parties in
analysing construction delays (Bramble and Callahan, 2010). Shortage of equipment
availability during construction is a situation caused due to lack of proper equipment
planning at the project conception phase. The third attribute, lack of systematic engineering
method to identify project time, is generally the result of an unprofessional approach and
perhaps a lack of commitment from the engineer or project manager. The fourth projectrelated attribute, low performance of the lowest-bidder contractor in tendering system, is a
very common factor causing delay in the Middle Eastern countries. Most of the public clients
in developing countries prefer the lowest bidder without knowing their competencies,
experience, and knowledge of project management practices and planning techniques
(Agumba and Fester, 2011). Finally, the fifth attribute, poor manpower productivity, results
from either a lack of on-site supervision or from employing an unskilled workforce, and
affects the quality delivery of the construction project.
4.3.3
Factor III - contractor-related shows delays caused by the contractors or subcontractors due to a lack of skills, knowledge, experience and competencies. Table 2
illustrates five critical contractor-related delay attributes with a total variance explained value
of 10.92%. The first and second attributes, poor site management and supervision by the

123

Abdullah Albogamy, Darren Scott, Nashwan Dawood and Ghanim Bekr

contractor and poor communication by the contractor, are interrelated with each other. The
importance of supervision and communication in achieving cost and time performance in
construction projects is explained by several experts (for example, Potts, 2008). In addition,
due to a third problematic delay factor of poor qualifications, skills and experience of the
contractors technical staff, the contractors either may not be able to cope with challenges or
may not understand the complexity of the project, both of which often result in time overruns.
A shortage of qualified engineers is also another common delay factor in Middle Eastern
countries. Many public organisations hire foreign engineers for their large construction
projects due to the lack of availability of qualified engineers locally. Finally, poor planning
and scheduling of the project by the contractor can lead to improper estimations about
several aspects or situations while carrying out a construction project (Agumba and Fester,
2011).
4.3.4
Factor IV - owner-related explains 11.65% of total variance and has six
underlying attributes. Owner-related issues illustrate the importance of decisions and actions
taken by the owner before and during the construction period. The first attribute, lack of
coordination with contractors, with the highest factor loading value of 0.682, results in
failure parameters in construction projects (Doloi et al., 2011). The second attribute, delay in
the approval of contractor submittals, is also another aspect of lack of coordination with
contractors. The third attribute, changes in the scope of the project, is very common in the
Middle East due to project managers having a lack of understanding about the scope or design
of the project (Kasimu, 2012). This often causes delays due to reworking, errors, repetition of
tasks, lack of motivation, and financial constraints. The fourth attribute, breach or
modification of contract by owner, often refers to the selection of amateur or inexperienced
contractors with inadequate skills and knowledge (Doloi et al., 2011). The fifth attribute,
poor qualifications and supervision of owners engineer, may lead to great difficulties for
the owner, as well as for other construction parties, in achieving their goals in a timely
manner. Lastly, the importance of the sixth attribute, slow decision-making process of the
owner, can be judged by the rankings of several researchers who placed it within the top five
factors causing construction delays in developing countries.
4.3.5
Factor V - consultant-related indicates delay problems associated with the
consultants. In Table 2, four significant consultant-related attributes are extracted with a total
variance explained of 10.81% of the linear component (factor). The first attribute, poor
qualification and supervision of staff of the consultant engineer, can adversely affect the
objectives of the client in terms of cost and time. The second attribute, delay in approval of
shop drawings, usually occurs due to a lack of communication between the consultant and
the approval authority. Similarly, absence of consultants site staff should be monitored
constantly to avoid time overruns (Assaf and Al-Hejji, 2006). Finally, the last attribute,
inadequate qualifications of consultant to the project, highlights the importance of using
qualified consultants so that proper project management practices and planning techniques
can be employed.
4.3.6
Factor VI - design-related highlights the importance of design-related errors
and changes by the consultant and owner due to either unfamiliarity with the local
environment and conditions or a lack of communication, skills, education, and experience of
working with consultants. The consultant-related attributes show a total variance explained
value of 8.67%.

124

Abdullah Albogamy, Darren Scott, Nashwan Dawood and Ghanim Bekr

4.3.7
Factor VII - external-related issues refers to work delays due to either
changes in government regulations or unforeseen events such as weather or changes to the
external environment. In Table 2, the total variance explained value of external-related factors
is 7.12%.
4.4 Reliability of factor analysis
In order to check the reliability of the factors, Cronbachs alpha (C) test was performed
on each factor group to see if they were standardised. The value of C should be between 0
and 1 where lower values demonstrate lower internal consistency and higher values illustrate
greater internal consistency. In fact, there is no set standard or pre-defined acceptable limit of
C value. Nevertheless, the following criteria explained by Nunally (1978) for the
interpretation of Cronbachs alpha values was carefully undertaken as a rule of thumb: C >
0.8 Excellent; 0.8 > C > 0.7 Good; 0.7 > C > 0.5 Satisfactory; and C < 0.5 Poor.
Table 4 shows that the value of Cronbachs alpha (C) for all attributes are computed as
0.930, which is considered to be excellent.

Factors
Material related
Project related
Contractor related
Owner related
Consultant related
Design related
External related
All Factors

Cronbachs Alpha (C)

0.608
0.602
0.755
0.813
0.881
0.697
0.668
0.930

Result
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Good
Excellent
Excellent
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Excellent

Table 4: Reliability analysis

4.5 Correlation analysis

In correlation analysis, correlation matrices are developed to identify the factors underlying
the attributes. For this purpose, a variable reduction scheme was used to illustrate how
different variables are grouped together and correlated with each other (Gorsuch, 1983). The
Karl Pearsons correlation coefficient r is considered because it helps to identify linear
relationships between delay factors. Table 5 shows that apart from all external-related factors
and a few project-related factors, the correlation between other attributes within seven groups
is statistically significant at 0.01 and 0.05 significance levels.
5 CONCLUSION
Delay is the key issue that construction stakeholders in Middle Eastern countries,
particularly in the KSA and Jordan, are currently facing. This particular issue impedes
sustainable building and construction in the region. Hence, this study aimed to identify causes
of delay in those countries. In this regard, a survey was conducted to identify the most crucial
factors causing delays in public sector projects in the KSA and Jordan. The results reveal that
the top 5 factors causing delays in the KSA are: (1) Low performance of the lowest-bidder

125

Abdullah Albogamy, Darren Scott, Nashwan Dawood and Ghanim Bekr

contractor in the tendering system; (2) delays in sub-contractors work; (3) poor
qualifications, skills and experience of the contractors technical staff; (4) poor planning and
scheduling of the project by the contractor; and (5) delays in progress payments by the owner.
In contrast, the five most crucial factors in the Jordanian construction industry context are: (1)
the low performance of the lowest-bidder contractor in the tendering system; (2) delay in
progress payments by the owner; (3) design changes by the owner; (4) poor planning and
scheduling of the project by the contractor; and (5) inadequate early planning of the project. It
is found from the ranking and factor analysis that 31 out of 63 delay factors are extremely
crucial at this time and need to be addressed urgently to avoid further time overruns in
developing countries, particularly in the KSA and Jordan.

P1
P36
P53
P15
1
.085
1
-.149
-.086
1
-.083
-.178 .469**
1
-.123 .471** .047**
-.041
Project-related factors

P1
P36
P53
P15
P35

CN49
CN42
CN43
CN41

P35
CT27
CT25
CT19
CT32
CT18

CN49 CN42 CN43 CN41

1
.606** 1
.518** .555** 1
.612** .525** 385 1

O9
O6
O7
O10
O13
O5

O9
1
.350**
.424**
.375**
.268**
.400**

Consultant-related factors

M37
M58
M38
M39

M37
1
.548*
.479*
.217*

M58

M38

1
.278*
1
.010 .127

M39

D45
D44
D51
D11

Material-related factors

D45
1
.696**
.471**
.333**

CT27
CT25
CT19
CT32 CT18
1
.490**
1
.638**
.321**
1
.192
-.012
.167
1
.672**
.357**
.663**
.004*
1
Contractor-related factors

D44
1
.423**
.437**

O6

O7

O10

O13

O5

1
.463**
1
.331** .500**
1
.404** .351**
.215*
1
.374** .224*
.239* .349**
Owner-related factors

D51

1
.259**

Design-related factors

D11
E63
E59
E55

E63
1
.087
.235

E59

E55

1
.324

1
External factors

**Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed test)

*Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed test)

Table 5: Results of correlation analysis

6 FUTURE WORK DIRECTION

Despite a clear understanding of these key factors associated with the construction
industries of the KSA and Jordan, a sincere attempt could be made to address the chronic
issue of time overrun by developing a risk management framework for Middle Eastern
countries. In this way, the lack of construction sustainability issue can also be addressed
indirectly.

126

Abdullah Albogamy, Darren Scott, Nashwan Dawood and Ghanim Bekr

7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The participation, contribution and comments from the respondents are appreciated.
Furthermore, the authors are thankful to Teesside and Coventry Universities for providing
research and publication facilities.
REFERENCES
J.B. Agumba and F.C. Fester, Identifying Tools and Techniques for Managing Construction
Project Delivery in Small and Medium Enterprises in UK Construction Industry,
Journal of Social and Development Sciences, 2(4), 204-213 (2011).
A.A. Aibinu and G.O. Jagboro, The eects of construction delays on project delivery in
Nigerian construction industry, International Journal of Project Management, 20, 593599 (2002).
M. Al-Khalil and M. A. Al-Ghafly, Delay in public utility projects in Saudi Arabia,
International Journal of Project Management, 17(2), 101-106 (1999).
A. Al-Kharashi and M. Skitmore, Causes of delays in Saudi Arabian public sector
construction projects, Construction Management and Economics, 27, 3-23 (2009).
S.A. Assaf, M. Khalil, and M. Al-Hazmi, Causes of delay in large building construction
projects, Journal of Management and Engineering, 11(2), 45-50 (1995).
S.A. Assaf and S. Al-Hejji, Causes of delay in large construction projects, International
Journal of Project Management, 24, 349-357 (2006).
B.B. Bramble and M.T. Callahan, Construction Delay Claims, 4th edition, Aspen Publishers
(2010).
H. Doloi, Analysis of pre-qualification criteria in contractor selection and their impacts on
project success, Construction Management and Economics, 27, 1245-1263 (2009).
H. Doloi, A. Sawhney, K.C. Iyer and S. Rentala, Analysing factors affecting delays in Indian
construction projects, International Journal of Project Management, 30, 479-489
(2011).
A. S. Faridi and S. M. El-Sayegh, Significant factors causing delay in the UAE construction
industry, Construction Management Economics, 24(11) 1167-1176 (2006).
A. Field, Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. London: Sage (2005).
Y. Frimpong, J. Oluwoye and L. Crawford, Causes of delay and cost overruns in
construction of ground water projects in developing countries: Ghana as a case study,
International Journal of Project Management, 21, 321-326 (2003).
R.L. Gorsuch, Factor analysis. 2nd edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum (1983).
K.C. Iyer and K.N. Jha, Factors affecting cost performance: evidence from Indian
construction projects, International Journal of Project Management, 23, 283-295
(2005).
M.A. Kasimu, Significant factors that cause cost overruns in building construction project in
Nigeria, Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(11), 775780 (2012).
M.M. Kumaraswamy and D.W.M. Chan, Contributors to construction delays, Construction
Management and Economics, 16, 17-29 (1998).
A.J. Lewry and L.F.E. Crewdson, Approaches to testing the durability of materials used in
the construction and maintenance of buildings, Construction and Building Materials,
8(4), 211-222 (1994).

127

Abdullah Albogamy, Darren Scott, Nashwan Dawood and Ghanim Bekr

J. Nunally, Psychometric Theory. 2nd Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill (1978).

K.F. Potts, Construction Cost Management: Learning from Case Studies. Routledge (2008).
A. Razek, H. A. Bassioni, and A. M. Mobarak, Causes of delay in building construction
projects in Egypt, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 134(11) 831841 (2008).
R. Reymont and K.G. Joreskog, Applied factor analysis in the natural sciences. New York:
Cambridge University Press (1993).
Samba Financial Group, Saudi and GCC Opportunities 2012-16 Economics Department,
June (2012).
M. Sambasivan and W.Y. Soon, Causes and eects of delays in Malaysian construction
industry International Journal of Project Management, 25, 517-526 (2006).
J. K. Sharma, Business Statistics. 2nd edition, Pearson Education India (2007).
G. Sweis, A. Abu-Hammad and A. Shboul, Delays in Construction Projects: The Case of
Jordan, International Journal of Project Management, 26(6) 665-674 (2007).
G. Wenbin, Eigenvector space: the missing concept in exploratory factor analysis,
International Academy of Business and Economics, 8(4), 1546-2609 (2008).

128