See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274704636

Green building projects: Schedule performance,

influential factors and solutions

ARTICLE in ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION & ARCHITECTURAL MANAGEMENT APRIL 2015

DOI: 10.1108/ECAM-07-2014-0095

CITATIONS READS

4 170

3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:

Bon-Gang Hwang Xianbo Zhao

National University of Singapore Central Queensland University
67 PUBLICATIONS 387 CITATIONS 35 PUBLICATIONS 183 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Xianbo Zhao
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 26 March 2016
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0969-9988.htm

Green building projects: schedule Green

building
performance, influential factors projects
and solutions
Bon-Gang Hwang 327
Department of Building, National University of Singapore, Received 11 July 2014
Singapore, Singapore Revised 11 December 2014
Accepted 19 January 2015
Xianbo Zhao
School of Engineering and Technology, Central Queensland University,
Sydney, Australia, and
Downloaded by Central Queensland University At 03:19 22 May 2015 (PT)

Lene Lay Ghim Tan

Pacific International Lines, Singapore, Singapore

Abstract
Purpose The purposes of this paper are to: investigate schedule performance of new and retrofitting
green building projects; identify the critical factors that influence the schedule performance of new and
retrofitting green building projects; and provide solutions to improve schedule performance of
new and retrofitting green building projects.
Design/methodology/approach A questionnaire survey were conducted and responses were
received from 34 firms experienced in green building projects in Singapore. After the data from the
survey had been analyzed, face-to-face interviews were conducted with two senior project managers to
solicit comments on the survey results.
Findings This study identified the degree of project delay in 98 new green building projects and
51 retrofitting green building projects in Singapore. The result indicated that 22 percent of the
Singaporean green building projects were plagued with delay and retrofitting projects had a
significantly higher likelihood of delay and significantly longer extension than new projects. In
addition, consultant cooperation to solve problems was the most influential to schedule performance
of both new and retrofitting green building projects, and the two project groups agreed on the overall
ranking of the factors affecting schedule performance.
Research limitations/implications There may be geographical limitation on the conclusions
drawn from the findings. Also, the sample size was still small, despite a relatively high response rate. In
addition, the majority of the respondents were contractors as other project players were reluctant to
respond to the survey.
Practical implications This study provides a clear understanding of the schedule performance of
green building projects as well as the critical factors that should be highlighted when constructing
green building projects. Also, strategies to overcome the negative impact of these factors allow
practitioners to better deal with the potential causes of delay and to attain the schedule performance.
Originality/value Although construction delays have been widely investigated in previous studies
relating to construction management, few have attempted to analyze the schedule performance of new
and retrofitting green buildings. Thus, this study adds significantly to the existing research on both
green building and construction delay.
Keywords Singapore, Buildings, Green building, Retrofitting, Delay, Schedule
Paper type Research paper

Engineering, Construction and

Introduction Architectural Management
Strengthened by the booming economy, construction demand in Singapore remains Vol. 22 No. 3, 2015
pp. 327-346
sturdy. New housings are reaping across the island to satisfy the pent-up demand, new Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0969-9988
offices are being constructed as Singapore perk-up its prestige as a regional center for DOI 10.1108/ECAM-07-2014-0095
 ECAM trade and commerce, and new facilities are being rolled out to boost the quality of life
22,3 in a high-dense environment. According to the Building and Construction Authority
(BCA, 2014b), Singapores construction demand reached a historical high of S$35.8
billion in 2013 and will remains strong in the next few years.
Having a mounting construction demand for a small country like Singapore,
sustainable development is not an option but a necessity. Being a city state holding
328 over five million residents with a land area of about 700 square kilometers, the
challenge lies in attaining the right balance between economic growth and
environmental sustainability. Thus, Singapore is moving toward a sustainable
development that put large attention on green building projects. The Green Mark
Scheme was commenced in January 2005 to steer Singapores construction industry
toward more environment-friendly buildings. In April 2008, the BCA mandated the
minimum Green Mark certified standard for all new buildings and existing buildings
Downloaded by Central Queensland University At 03:19 22 May 2015 (PT)

that require major retrofitting work. The Singapore Green Building Council (SGBC)
estimated that at least 6,500 buildings would need to be retrofitted over the next
20 years to enable Singapore to reach the goal of having 80 percent of all buildings
certified by the Green Mark by 2,030 (BCA, 2009). A recent study by the BCA showed
that the retrofitted existing buildings can achieve an average of 20 percent in energy
savings (BCA, 2014a).
To achieve the goal, it is important to diminish delays in green building projects and
to ensure the projects are completed on time. Also, assurance of project schedule is an
important indicator of project success, and factors associated with project schedule
have been recognized to be critical to project success (Hwang et al., 2013; Ling et al.,
2009). If a project can be completed on time or even earlier than the completion date, the
overhead costs, labor costs, and interest costs will be reduced. Simultaneously, early
completion enables clients to make more profits as revenue can be earned earlier.
Construction delays have been widely investigated in previous studies relating to
construction management (such as Assaf and Al-Hejji, 2006; Long et al., 2008a; Sweis
et al., 2008). However, few studies have attempted to analyze the schedule performance
of new and retrofitting green buildings. The specific objectives of this study are to:
investigate schedule performance of new and retrofitting green building projects;
identify the critical factors that influence the schedule performance of new and
retrofitting green building projects; and provide solutions to improve schedule
performance of new and retrofitting green building projects.
As an increasing number of countries have initiated programs to embrace green
buildings to deal with the climate change (He and Kua, 2013; Kua and Wong, 2012) and
schedule performance is an indicator of project performance and critical to project
success (Ling et al., 2009), this study provides a clear understanding of the schedule
performance of green building projects as well as the critical factors that should be
highlighted when constructing green building projects. Also, strategies to overcome the
negative impact of these factors allow practitioners to better deal with the potential
causes of delay and to attain the schedule performance.

Background
Green building
Sustainable development has turned out to be a global issue as global climate changes
have gradually become a serious concern for the future. Thus, the major goal of
sustainable construction is to create a healthy built environment based on efficient use
 of resources and smart ecological design. The building sector is experiencing a green Green
revolution (Gou et al., 2013). There have been various definitions of the term green building
building. For example, green building is defined as a building that the required
building performance criteria while minimizing the disturbance to and improving the
projects
ecosystems in the local, regional and global context throughout its life cycle (Glavinich,
2008). In Singapore, a building is deemed green if it has met the requirements under the
Green Mark Scheme, which adopts the assessment criteria covering energy efficiency, 329
water efficiency, environmental protection, indoor environmental quality, and other
green features and innovation (Hwang and Tan, 2012).

Green building in Singapore

In Singapore, the Green Mark Scheme was introduced to promote environmentally
Downloaded by Central Queensland University At 03:19 22 May 2015 (PT)

sustainable buildings in 2005 and formed the backbone of Singapores first Green
Building Masterplan focussed on new buildings and those under major retrofitting.
With the success on the first Masterplan, the BCA announced their second Green
Building Masterplan focussed on converting the existing buildings to green buildings
(BCA, 2009). To accelerate the process of going green, the BCA has launched the third
Green Building Masterplan, which highlights building capability in the industry,
engaging the tenants and occupants for closer partnership between the people, private
and public sectors, driving consumption behavioral adjustments, as well as developing
an environment that addresses the well-being of the people (BCA, 2014a).
In addition, the BCA introduced a Green Mark Incentives Scheme for New Buildings
(GMIS-NB). The scheme offers S$20 million incentives to developers, building owners,
project architects and M&E engineers who make efforts to achieve at least a Green
Mark Gold rating in the design and construction of new buildings (BCA, 2013b). Also,
the BCA launched a Green Mark Incentive Scheme for Existing Buildings (GMIS-EB)
with the financial incentives of S$100 million in order to boost the retrofitting of
existing buildings in the private sector, recognizing that owners are discouraged from
upgrading the energy performance of their buildings due to the financial expenditure
involved (BCA, 2013a). Because of the incentive schemes mentioned above, till July
2016, there have been 2,155 Green Mark certified buildings in Singapore (BCA, 2014a).

Factors affecting project schedule performance

A project schedule is a written or graphical representation of the contractors plan for
completing a construction project that stresses the elements of time and sequence
(Trauner, 2009). In terms of green construction, the green requirements should be well
addressed and reflected in project schedule performance (Hwang and Leong, 2013).
The design and construction of green buildings usually takes longer time than
traditional projects because project team members need more time to understand and
implement green practices (GreenBiz, 2005; Kats et al., 2003) and more time is required
to integrate green requirements into architectural and engineering designs (Kats et al.,
2003). In addition, Glavinich (2008) indicated that green requirements would affect the
schedule of procurement, construction, and project closeout.
In addition to the factors relating to green requirements, a number of studies have
investigated the factors affecting schedule performance of construction projects. For
example, Lowe et al. (2006) identified 30 causes of delay in Hong Kong construction
projects under seven categories including factors relating to clients, engineers,
contractors, human behavior, projects, resources and the external environment;
 ECAM Abd El-Razek et al. (2008) investigated the factors leading to delays in residential
22,3 projects in Egypt and found that the most important factor were financing by
contractor during construction, delays in contractors payment by owner, design
changes by owner or his agent during construction, partial payments during
construction, and non-utilization of professional construction/contractual management;
Sambasivan and Soon (2007) identified the delay factors and their impact on project
330 completion in the Malaysian construction industry, and reported that contractors
improper planning, contractors poor site management, and inadequate contractor
experience were the top three causes; and Hwang et al. (2013) analyzed the critical
factors affecting the schedule performance of public housing projects in Singapore and
revealed that site management, coordination among various parties, and availability of
labor on site were the top three factors. Anchored in the literature review, this study
identifies and groups the 36 factors affecting project schedule performance into eight
Downloaded by Central Queensland University At 03:19 22 May 2015 (PT)

categories: project-related factors, client-related factors, design team-related factors,

consultant-related factors, contractor-related factors, labor-related factors, equipment-
and material-related factors, and external factors (see Table I). Despite the studies
investigating the schedule performance of traditional construction projects, few have
explored the factors relating to the delays of green building projects and the schedule
performance of green building projects. Therefore, this study can expand the literature
through identifying the critical factors and schedule performance of green building
projects in Singapore.

Method and data presentation

Research design
A literature review was performed to provide a clear understanding of the topic and to
collect information that was used to develop the survey questionnaire. A pilot study
was conducted with three project managers from consultants and contractors to
validate the factors that may affect the schedule performance of green buildings.
The finalized survey questionnaire consisted of four sections. The first section was
meant to profile the respondents and their companies. The respondents were also asked
to provide the information of the new and retrofitting green building projects that they
had been engaged in.
In the second section, the 36 factors affecting project schedule performance were
presented in eight categories. The respondents were requested to rate the extent to
which the factors affected the schedule performance of new and retrofitting green
buildings, respectively. A five-point Likert scale was adopted in rating (1 very low;
2 low; 3 neutral; 4 high; 5 very high).
The third section was meant to assess the schedule performance of green building
projects. The respondents were asked to estimate the likelihood of delay and to provide
the actual percentage of delay in new and retrofitting green building projects,
respectively. The percentage of delay was calculated using the following equation:

Actual total project durationPlanned project duration

% of delay  100%
Planned project duration

The last section was aimed to collect the respondents opinions on potential strategies
to enhance schedule performance of green building projects. A list of recommendations
was presented that could be used to solve the delay problems faced by project players
 Downloaded by Central Queensland University At 03:19 22 May 2015 (PT)

References
Category Code Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Project-related PR1 Project cost * *

factors PR2 Complexity of project * * * *
PR3 Size of project * *
Client-related CR1 Client-initiated variations * * * * * *
factors CR2 Clients flexibility and ability to make decision * * *
CR3 Delay of progress payment * * * * *
CR4 Client type and experience * * *
Design team- DR1 Project design complexity * *
related factors DR2 Mistakes/delays in producing design documents * * *
DR3 Misinterpretation of clients requests * *
DR4 Level of design team experience * *
Consultant- CS1 Consultants commitment to ensure construction work according to * *
related factors specification
CS2 Consultants involvement to monitor the project progress * * *
CS3 Consultant cooperation to solve problem * *
CS4 Delay in approving major changes in the scope of works * *
Contractor- CO1 Poor planning of site activities and supervision * * * * * *
related factor CO2 Cash flow of the contractor * * * * * *
CO3 Reworks due to defects during construction * *
CO4 Construction methods implemented by contractor * * * *
CO5 Deficiency in planning and updating schedule plans * * * *
Equipment and EM1 Equipment failure or breakdown * *
material-related EM2 Unskilled equipment operators * *
factors EM3 Low productivity and efficiency of equipment * * *
EM4 Lack of high technology mechanical equipment * *
EM5 Shortage of materials on site or market * * * * * *
EM6 Late delivery of material * *
EM7 Changes in materials used during construction * *

(continued )

Factors affecting
projects

performance
project schedule
building
Green

Table I.
331
 Downloaded by Central Queensland University At 03:19 22 May 2015 (PT)

22,3

332

Table I.
ECAM

References
Category Code Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Labor-related LR1 Shortage of labor * * * *
factors LR2 Low labor productivity *
LR3 Low labor skills *
External factors EX1 Bad weather conditions * * * *
EX2 Unfavorable site conditions * * * * *
EX3 Delays in obtaining permit from municipality * * *
EX4 Accident during construction * * *
EX5 Discrepancy between design specification and building code * *
EX6 Delay in performing final inspection and certification by a third party * *
Notes: 1, Long et al. (2008b); 2, Abd El-Razek et al. (2008); 3, Akinsola et al. (1997); 4, Assaf and Al-Hejji (2006); 5, Belassi and Tukel (1996); 6, Belout (1998);
7, Chan and Kumaraswamy (1997); 8, Chua et al. (1999); 9, Al-Momani (2000); 10, Sweis et al. (2008); 11, Lowe et al. (2006); 12, Manavazhi and Adhikari (2002);
13, Hwang et al. (2013); 14, Odeyinka and Yusif (1997); 15, Ahmed et al. (2003); 16, Sambasivan and Soon (2007); 17, Songer and Molenaar (1997);
18, Dissanayaka and Kumaraswamy (1999); 19, Frimpong et al. (2003). *Indicates the inclusion of the specific factor in the reference
 in new and retrofitting green building projects. The respondents were asked whether Green
they agree or disagree on these strategies. building
The population was all the professionals with experience in green building. A total
of 113 questionnaires were randomly sent out to the building contractors registered
projects
with the BCA, as well as the consultants, architects, and developers in the directory of
the Association of Consulting Engineers Singapore and the Real Estate Developers
Association of Singapore. The possible problem of low response rate could be settled 333
through telephone reminders. As a result, a total of 34 responses were received,
representing a response rate of 30 percent, which was consistent with the norm of 20-30
percent in most surveys in the construction industry (Akintoye, 2000). Despite the small
sample size, statistical analysis could still be performed as the central limit theorem
holds true with a sample size not smaller than 30 (Ott and Longnecker, 2008).
The profile of the respondents and their companies and projects is presented in
Downloaded by Central Queensland University At 03:19 22 May 2015 (PT)

Table II. As shown in Table II, 65 percent of the respondents were from contractors,
while the remaining were from consulting firms (18 percent), developers (9 percent), and
architecture firms (9 percent).
Although the questionnaire has been considered as the most cost-effective and most
popular way to collect data relating to attitudes, opinions, and behaviors (Gravetter and
Forzano, 2012), survey responses could be subjective and thus validation and caution
for generalization are necessary (Hwang and Yang, 2014). As a result, after the data
from the survey had been analyzed, face-to-face interviews were conducted with two
senior project managers who had 15 and 18 years of experience in the construction
industry, respectively. As they were not included in the survey respondents, they could
fairly comment on the survey results.

Data analysis methods

According to the seven plus or minus two principle (Miller, 1956), this study adopts
the scale of five , which makes it convenient for respondents to judge. Thus, a five-point

Characteristics n %

Company (N 34) Contractor 22 65

Developer 3 9
Consultant 6 18
Architect 3 9
Respondent (N 34) Designation Middle management 4 12
Project management 19 56
Project personnel 9 26
Others 2 6
Experience in green building o3 years 5 15
3-4 years 8 24
5-10 years 21 62
Projects (N 149) New (N 98) Commercial 36 37
Residential 23 23
Education 28 29
Industry 11 11
Retrofitting (N 51) Commercial 18 35 Table II.
Residential 12 24 Profile of companies,
Education 13 25 respondents and
Industry 8 16 projects
 ECAM scale was used to rate the extent to which the factors affected the schedule performance
22,3 of both new and retrofitting green buildings. Actually, the five-point Likert scale has
been widely used in construction management studies (Hwang et al., 2014b; Le et al.,
2014; Ling, 2014; Wu et al., 2013; Zhao et al., 2013). The cut off value was set at 3
because on a five-point Likert scale 3 was anchored by neutral.
Also, the paired t-test was carried out to test whether there were significant
334 differences in the likelihood and extension of schedule delay between new and
retrofitting green building projects. This method is usually used to compare means on
the same subject over time or in different circumstances.
In addition, the Spearmans rank correlation was performed and statistically tested
to examine the agreement on the factor ranking between new and retrofitting projects.
It is a method of computing a correlation between the ranks of scores between two
groups. The correlation is calculated on the ranks of scores, not the scores themselves.
Downloaded by Central Queensland University At 03:19 22 May 2015 (PT)

As a result, without the consideration of normality or equal variance of data, this

method focusses on difference in rank orders of data rather than difference in means.
This method has been widely used in previous studies relating to delay or schedule
performance of construction and building projects (Assaf and Al-Hejji, 2006; Hwang
and Yang, 2014; Hwang et al., 2013; Mezher and Tawil, 1998).
The Spearmans rank correlation coefficient r is calculated by the following formula:
h X  3 2 i
2
r 1 6 d =n n n

where d is the difference between ranks assigned to each factor, and n is the number of
pairs of rank.

Data analysis and discussion

Schedule performance: new vs retrofitting projects
The schedule delay was compared between new and retrofitting green building
projects. As Table III indicates, the overall proportions represented by the projects with
delay were 22 and 31 percent in 98 new and 51 retrofitting green projects, respectively.
The interviewees indicated that retrofitting work usually takes place in an existing
building, or in the presence of occupants. As such, some occupants may view
retrofitting works to be disruptive (Miller and Buys, 2008). The potential for retrofit
varies from buildings to buildings and is constrained by the existing building profile
(Dascalaki and Santamouris, 2002; Hansen, 2006). Hence, there are many barriers and
challenges faced in the retrofitting works, especially during the construction, whereby
the contractors have to work within the on-going operations of the building, which may
eventually affect the project schedule. In addition, commercial building projects
accounted for the highest project delay probability for both the new (39 percent) and

New Retrofitting
Project type n total n with delay % n total n with delay %

Commercial 36 14 39 18 9 50
Table III. Residential 23 0 0 12 0 0
Project delay: new Educational 28 6 21 13 4 31
vs retrofitting green Industrial 11 2 18 8 3 38
building projects Total 98 22 22 51 16 31
 retrofitting (50 percent) projects. This was possibly because commercial projects are Green
relatively unique in nature and vary extensively in terms of its usage, design, and building
specification. Compared to other building types in which the building forms and
designs are relatively similar, commercial buildings are more difficult to replicate. Also,
projects
the retrofitting commercial buildings experienced more delay than the new buildings.
This may be attributed to the fact that commercial buildings are usually retrofitted
when they are still in operation, which is likely to bring constraints and restrictions to 335
retrofitting works.
The respondents were also requested to rate the likelihood and extension of project
delay based on their experience. As shown in Table IV, 65 percent of the respondents
believed that new green buildings were seldom plagued with delay, with the likelihood
lower than 30 percent. In contrast, only 41 percent considered that the delay in
retrofitting projects occurred at the likelihood below 30 percent and 53 percent of the
Downloaded by Central Queensland University At 03:19 22 May 2015 (PT)

respondents rated the likelihood between 31 and 60 percent for retrofitting projects.
In addition, retrofitting projects had a higher mean likelihood (31 percent) of delay than
new projects (23 percent). The paired t-test was carried out to test whether there was
significant difference in the likelihood of schedule delay between new and retrofitting
green building projects. The p-value was 0.040, suggesting that the null hypothesis was
rejected and that the difference was statistically significant.
As for the extension of project schedule delay, 53 percent of the respondents
considered that the actual schedule of new green building projects was 1-5 percent
longer than the planned schedule while 50 percent reported that retrofitting projects
usually experienced 6-9 percent schedule delay. However, none indicated building
projects had the schedule over 10 percent than the planned schedule. Additionally, new
green projects had a lower extension of delay than retrofitting projects, and the paired
t-test result implied that this difference was statistically significant (p-value 0.010).

Critical factors affecting the schedule performance in green buildings

The respondents rated how much the 36 factors affected the schedule performance of
new and retrofitting green buildings using a five-point Likert scale (1 very low;
2 low; 3 neutral; 4 high; 5 very high). Table V presents the mean scores,
intra- and inter-category ranks of each factor in both new and retrofitting green
building projects.
Project-related factors. In new projects, factor PR2 yielded the highest mean score of
4.03. It can be construed that the respondents considered the level of complexity of the
project affected its schedule performance to a large extent. Following, PR1 and PR3

New Retrofitting New Retrofitting

Likelihood of delay n % n % % of delay n % n %

0% 7 21 5 15 0 7 21 5 15
1-30% 15 44 9 26 1-5 18 53 12 35
31-60% 12 35 18 53 6-9 9 26 17 50
61-99% 0 0 2 6 10 0 0 0 0 Table IV.
Total 34 100 34 100 Total 34 100 34 100 Likelihood and
Mean 23 31 Mean 3.5 4.8 extension of project
p-value 0.040* p-value 0.010* delay: new vs
Note: *Paired t-test result is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed) retrofitting
 ECAM New Retrofitting
22,3 Rank Rank Rank Rank
Category Code Factors Mean I II Mean I II

Project-related PR1 Project cost 3.91 2 23 4.03 2 23

factors PR2 Complexity of project 4.03 1 20 4.09 1 19
PR3 Size of project 3.88 3 24 4 3 24
336 Client-related CR1 Client-initiated variations 4.35 1 4 4.41 1 6
factors CR2 Clients flexibility and ability to
make decision 4.09 3 19 4.12 3 17
CR3 Delay of progress payment 4.21 2 14 4.29 2 13
CR4 Client type and experience 4.00 4 21 4.06 4 21
Design team- DR1 Project design complexity 4.15 4 17 4.18 3 15
related factors DR2 Mistakes/delays in producing
Downloaded by Central Queensland University At 03:19 22 May 2015 (PT)

design documents 4.24 2 12 4.32 2 12

DR3 Misinterpretation of clients
requests 4.32 1 7 4.44 1 4
DR4 Level of design team experience 4.18 3 16 4.12 4 17
Consultant- CS1 Consultants commitment to
related factors ensure construction work
according to specification 4.29 3 9 4.32 4 12
CS2 Consultants involvement to
monitor the project progress 4.35 2 4 4.56 2 2
CS3 Consultant cooperation to solve
problem 4.44 1 1 4.59 1 1
CS4 Delay in approving major changes
in the scope of works 4.29 4 9 4.35 3 9
Contractor- CO1 Poor planning of site activities and
related factor supervision 4.21 2 14 4.38 1 7
CO2 Cash flow of the contractor 4.32 1 7 4.35 2 9
CO3 Reworks due to defects during
construction 3.97 4 22 4.03 4 23
CO4 Construction methods
implemented by contractor 3.38 5 35 3.29 5 36
CO5 Deficiency in planning and
updating schedule plans 4.09 3 19 4.06 3 21
Equipment-/ EM1 Equipment failure or breakdown 3.41 6 33 3.56 5 32
material- EM2 Unskilled equipment operators 3.53 4 30 3.62 4 31
related factors EM3 Low productivity and efficiency of
equipment 3.38 7 35 3.47 7 35
EM4 Lack of high technology
mechanical equipment 3.76 3 27 3.79 3 29
EM5 Shortage of materials on site or
market 4.21 2 14 4.35 2 9
EM6 Late delivery of material 4.38 1 2 4.47 1 3
EM7 Changes in materials used during
construction 3.50 5 31 3.53 6 33
Labor-related LR1 Shortage of labor (both skilled and
factors unskilled) 3.79 1 26 3.94 1 25
Table V. LR2 Low labor productivity 3.68 2 29 3.82 2 28
Factors affecting LR3 Low labor skills 3.35 3 36 3.62 3 31
schedule
performance in green
building projects (continued )
 New Retrofitting
Green
Rank Rank Rank Rank building
Category Code Factors Mean I II Mean I II projects
External EX1 Bad weather conditions 4.26 3 11 4.12 3 17
factors EX2 Unfavorable site conditions 4.35 1 4 4.44 1 4
EX3 Delays in obtaining permit from
municipality 3.82 4 25 3.85 5 27 337
EX4 Accident during construction 4.29 2 9 4.26 2 14
EX5 Discrepancy between design
specification and building code 3.71 5 28 3.88 4 26
EX6 Delay in performing final
inspection and certification by a
third party 3.41 6 33 3.50 6 34
Downloaded by Central Queensland University At 03:19 22 May 2015 (PT)

Notes: Rank I Intra-category rank; Rank II Inter-category rank. The Spearman rank correlation
coefficient was 0.971 (p-value o0.001) Table V.

were ranked second and third, respectively, with mean scores of 3.91 and 3.88. As for
retrofitting green building projects, the most critical factor was PR1 with a mean score
of 4.09, followed by factors PR1 and PR3. Thus, the result implied that project
complexity was the most crucial delay factor among the other factors for both new and
retrofitting building projects.
Client-related factors. As shown in Table V, factor CR4 was ranked first with mean
scores of 4.35 and 4.41 in new and retrofitting green building projects, respectively.
It implied that client-initiated changes should be carefully considered for the potential
impact on schedule performance of both new and retrofitting building projects. These
changes would result in client-related rework, thus threatening project schedule
performance (Hwang et al., 2014a). Factor CR3 was ranked second in project groups.
It was found that projects tended to achieve better performance than desired when
payments to the contractor were released promptly (Iyer and Jha, 2006). In both groups
of building projects, all the client-related factors had mean scores over 4.00, indicating
that client had significant impact on the project schedule performance and should not
be overlooked.
Design team-related factors. Referring to Table V, misinterpretation of clients
requests (DR3) was deemed to be the most critical delay factor in both groups of
projects, confirming that the effectiveness of communication between designers and
client was crucial for project schedule performance (Lowe et al., 2006). Factor DR2
occupied the second position in both types of building projects with relatively high
mean scores of 4.24 and 4.32, respectively. This implied that mistakes/delays in
producing design documents have high influence in delaying the project schedule, and
thus it is essential for design team to produce the design documents promptly with
minimum mistakes to avoid project delays. Also, all the design team-related factors
gained mean scores above 4.00, suggesting that these factors exerted significant impact
on the project schedule performance and merited attention.
Consultant-related factors. With reference to Table V, CS3 consultant cooperation to
solve problem was considered as the most influential factor leading to project schedule
delay in both new and retrofitting projects. The mean score of factor CS3 was 4.44 in
new green building projects and 4.59 in the retrofitting group. In addition, factor CS2
 ECAM was ranked second in both new and retrofitting green building projects with mean
22,3 scores of 4.35 and 4.56, respectively. The results implied that without consultants
commitment cooperation to solve problem and consultants involvement in monitoring
the project progress, it would be difficult to make projects meet their schedule.
Following, factors CS1 and CS4 are ranked third and fourth in new and retrofitting
green building projects. For both types of building projects, all the consultant-related
338 factors gained mean scores above 4.00, showing that consultant-related factor exerted
significant influence on the project schedule performance.
Contractor-related factors. As shown in Table V, in new green building projects,
factor CO2 yielded the highest mean score. It can be inferred that the respondents
considered the cash flow of the contractor as topmost important factor affecting the
project schedule. This result was consistent with the previous studies that recognized
cash flow problems of contractors as a cause of project delay (Al-Khalil and Al-Ghafly,
Downloaded by Central Queensland University At 03:19 22 May 2015 (PT)

1999; Arditi et al., 1985; Iyer and Jha, 2006). In retrofitting projects, factor CO1 was
ranked first, indicating that planning of site activities merited more attention because
these site activities would be conducted with the on-going operations of the building.
These two factors were followed by factors CO5 and CO3 in both types of projects. In
addition, factor CO4 received the bottom positions with mean scores of 3.38 and 3.29 in
new and retrofitting projects, respectively. This result suggested that the construction
method chosen by contractors was less important to schedule performance of green
building projects.
Equipment-/material-related factors. In this category, factor EM6 late delivery of
material was ranked top in both new and retrofitting building projects, with mean
scores of 4.38 and 4.47, respectively. It is not strange that delay in material delivery
causes negatively affects project schedule. This result substantiated the finding of
Enshassi et al. (2009) that delay of material delivery to site was one of the most
influential factor to schedule of construction projects. Factor EM5 shortage of
materials on site or market was ranked second in both project groups, which echoed
the findings of Enshassi et al. (2009) and Kaming et al. (1997). Thus, project delay could
be reduced if material is delivered promptly to prevent shortage of materials on site or
market. Additionally, the other five factors within this category did not obtain mean
scores above 4.00 in both groups of projects, suggesting that their influence on
schedule was less significant.
Labor-related factors. In this category of factors, factor LR1 was ranked top with
mean scores of 3.79 and 3.94 in new and retrofitting projects, respectively. This result
was consistent with the finding of Hwang et al. (2013) that availability of labor on site
was among the top three factors affecting schedule of Singaporean public housing
projects. In Singapore, most of the laborers working on construction site are foreigners.
Thus, the limit imposed by the government on the working visa would influence the
import of labor, thus possibly leading to shortage of labor. Also, it merits attention that
all the three factors in this category obtained mean scores below 4.00, indicating that
the influence of the labor issues on schedule was less significant. This was probably
attributed to the recent efforts made by the Singapores government to enhance the
construction productivity (BCA, 2014c).
External factors. Factor EX2 unfavorable site conditions received the top position
in both new and retrofitting green building projects, yielding mean scores of 4.35 and
4.44, respectively. This result substantiated the previous findings that site conditions,
especially unexpected foundation conditions, significantly contribute to project delay in
 Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Australia (Abd El-Razek et al., 2008; Al-Khalil and Al-Ghafly, Green
1999; Walker, 1995). Factor EX2 was followed by EX4, which was ranked second in building
both project groups. The occurrence of accidents during construction usually requires
time spent on investigation and rescue. If the accidents occur in the critical path, they
projects
will result in project delay. Factor EX1 bad weather conditions was ranked third with
mean scores of 4.26 and 4.12 in new and retrofitting projects, respectively, indicating
that schedule performance of Singapores green projects was significantly impacted by 339
weather. This result was similar with the previous findings of Koushki et al. (2005) and
Semple et al. (1994). In Singapore, these external factors, which usually fall outside
a firms control, should be highlighted, as suggested by Low et al. (2009).
Cross-category ranking. According to their mean scores, the 36 factors were
ranked across categories in both new and retrofitting green building projects as well.
As Table V indicates, in the group of new green building projects, the top ten factors
Downloaded by Central Queensland University At 03:19 22 May 2015 (PT)

are CS3, EM6, CR1, CS2, EX2, DR3, CO2, CS1, CS4, and EX4. Additionally, in the
retrofitting group, the top-ten ranking consists of CS3, CS2, EM6, DR3, EX2, CR1, CO1,
CS4, CO2, and EM5.
Consultant cooperation to solve problem was ranked top in both project groups,
suggesting that the cooperation between consultant and other project players was the
most important to project schedule performance. This confirmed the finding of Ning
and Ling (2013) that the peaceful and harmonious affirmative cooperation can enhance
the schedule performance of public projects in Singapore. According to the
interviewees, it was important for consultants to give full cooperation to contractors
or client when their expertise advice or assistance is required. As green building
construction is considered relatively new in construction industry, consultant
proficiency and cooperation is crucial to prevent project schedule performance. Also,
late delivery of material was ranked second and third in new and retrofitting green
building projects, respectively. Materials are vital to keep the construction work going
on, so the execution time of the project may be extended due to delay in the delivery of
the material to the construction site. Ignoring the lead time for material delivery by the
vendors would result in material shortage, as the interviewees indicated. This result
echoed the previous findings of Enshassi et al. (2009) and Kadir et al. (2005).
In addition, to examine the agreement on the factor ranking between new and
retrofitting projects, the Spearmans rank correlation was performed and statistically
tested. In Table V, the correlation coefficient was computed based on the inter-category
ranks of new and retrofitting projects. The coefficient was 0.971 with a p-value <0.001,
implying that there was strong agreement on the factor ranking between new and
retrofitting projects.
As shown in Table VI, the mean scores of each factor category were computed by
taking average mean scores of all the factors under each category. Consultant-related
factors, design team-related factors, and client-related factors were ranked top three in
both new and retrofitting building construction projects. This implied that respondents
considered these three categories of factors had greatest impact on project schedule
performance. As the interviewees stated, both new and retrofitting green building
projects were intricate and required ample supports from the project design team and
construction professions. Additionally, during the design development stage, the
design team and consultants had to spend time in studying and analyzing the system
performance, following the green building design because the green technologies were
still new to the Singaporean construction industry. Furthermore, clients aptitude to
 ECAM brief the projects objectives was also very important to avoid misinterpretations
22,3 during project progress and delay in project schedule. The Spearmans rank correlation
coefficient of 0.929 with a p-value of 0.001 indicated a strong agreement on the factor
category ranking between new and retrofitting building projects.

Solutions to improve schedule performance of green building projects

340 A list of recommendations that could be considered to solve the problems that could
result in poor schedule performance was proposed in the survey questionnaire.
These solutions are either suggested by the respondents in the pilot studies or
identified from previous studies (Abd El-Razek et al., 2008; Assaf and Al-Hejji, 2006;
Hwang et al., 2013; Lo et al., 2006; Sambasivan and Soon, 2007). These solutions, as
shown in Table VII, were agreed by all the respondents and interviewees. As the matter
of fact, these solutions are what the construction industry practitioners have been
Downloaded by Central Queensland University At 03:19 22 May 2015 (PT)

striving toward to reduce construction delay. The solutions for the top cause of delay
are discussed as follows.
The consultant cooperation to solve problem is the most critical to prevent poor
schedule performance in both building projects. Thus, consultant should give full
cooperation to contractor or client when their expertise is needed. Also, the consultant who
is involved in the construction projects should responsibly play his role in monitoring the
project progress and ensuring the project is completed according to the project plan.
In addition, materials are very important to ensure the construction works can move
on, thus the execution time of the project may be extended due to delay in the delivery
of the material to the construction site. Hence, it is highly recommended that material
supply should be recorded and monitored closely in order to have continuous and
sufficient supply to avoid unnecessary delays in construction projects.
Unfavorable site condition is identified as another key factor element to affect the
schedule performance for both new and retrofitting green building construction
projects. The conditions of a site would affect the performance of the construction work
to a large extent which might eventually delay the project schedule. Therefore, is it
important to for project players to work together to provide adequate measures and
provisions to counter the effects of unfavorable site conditions.

Conclusions and recommendations

The Singaporean government has set the goal of goal of having 80 percent of all
buildings certified by the Green Mark by 2,030 (BCA, 2009). To achieve the goal, it is

New Retrofit
Factor categories Mean Rank Mean Rank

Consultant-related factors 4.34 1 4.46 1

Design team-related factors 4.22 2 4.27 2
Client-related factors 4.16 3 4.22 3
Contractor-related factors 3.99 4 4.02 5
External factors 3.97 5 4.01 6
Table VI. Project-related factors 3.94 6 4.04 4
Ranking of factor Equipment-/material-related factors 3.74 7 3.83 7
categories: new vs Labor-related factors 3.61 8 3.79 8
retrofitting Note: The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was 0.929 (p-value 0.001)
 Factor category Solutions
Green
building
Project-related factors Perform sufficient studies and analysis on the project requirements and projects
complexity before working on the project
Client-related factors Minimize change orders during construction to avoid delays
Avoid setback in reviewing and approval of documents, materials or others
Pay contractors on time to facilitate the contractors ability to finance the
work 341
Check contractors resources and capabilities before awarding the contract
Design team-related Ensure that design documents are produced punctually
factors Check for errors and discrepancies in design documents before submission
for approval to avoid deviations or corrections
Communicate with the client promptly to avoid misinterpretation
Consultant-related Be fully committed in monitoring the project progress and ensure the work
Downloaded by Central Queensland University At 03:19 22 May 2015 (PT)

factors is according to specification and in satisfied quality

Give full cooperation to contractors or clients when their expertise are
required
Try to avoid delays in approving changes in the scope of work
Contractors-related Assign administrative and technical staff for site management and
factors supervision as soon as the project is awarded to make arrangements to
achieve completion within specified time with the required quality, and
estimated cost
Manage the financial resources and plan cash flow by utilizing progress
payment
Project team leaders must be committed to their responsibility and
monitored the project progress closely especially on cost, time and quality
Highlight planning and scheduling during construction, ensuring that they
are match with the resources and time to develop the work to avoid cost
overrun and disputes
Ensure that there is optimum number of labors to be assigned for
individual activities and motivate the workers to increase productivity
Equipment/material- Perform frequent maintenance on equipment to prevent breakdown
related factors Record and monitor material supply to have timely and sufficient supply to
avoid delay
Labor-related factors Supervise to ensure the availability of labors on site
Provide sufficient training for workers to ensure they work operate
equipment fully and efficiently
External factors Regularly inspect the design specification and building code to prevent
discrepancy Table VII.
Provide sufficient safety training and equipment for the workers Solutions to
Provide adequate measures and provisions to counter the effects of improve schedule
unfavorable site conditions performance

important to reduce delays in green building projects and to ensure the projects are
completed on time. This study attempts to investigate schedule performance of new
and retrofitting green building projects, identify the critical factors affecting the
schedule performance, and provide solutions to improve schedule performance.
To achieve the research objectives, a questionnaire survey and follow-up interviews
were performed. The results indicated that an average of 22 percent of Singaporean
green building projects were plagued with delay and that commercial buildings were
more likely to experience delay than other types of buildings. Also, 65 percent of the
respondents indicated that new green buildings were seldom plagued with delay, while
53 percent rated the likelihood to experience delay between 31 and 60 percent for
 ECAM retrofitting projects. In addition, the analysis results showed that retrofitting projects
22,3 had a significantly higher mean likelihood of delay and significantly longer extension
than new projects. As for the factors affecting schedule performance of green building
projects, the result indicated that the cooperation between consultant and other project
players was the most important to project schedule performance. Also, there was
strong agreement on the factor ranking between new and retrofitting green projects, as
342 the Spearmans rank correlation result showed. In terms of ranking of factor categories,
the factors related to consultant, design team, and clients were ranked top three in both
new and retrofitting projects. Finally, a list of solutions to delay problems was
proposed for practitioners.
Although the objectives of this study were achieved, there are some limitations to
conclusions drawn from the results. First, as the sample size in this study was
relatively small, one should be cautious when the analysis results are interpreted and
Downloaded by Central Queensland University At 03:19 22 May 2015 (PT)

generalized. Also, the majority of the respondents were contractors as other project
players were reluctant to respond to the survey. Lastly, the findings from this study are
well interpreted in the context of Singapore.
Nonetheless, an increasing number of countries have initiated programs to embrace
green buildings to deal with the climate change. As schedule performance is an
indicator of project performance and critical to project success (Ling et al., 2009), this
study provides a clear understanding of the schedule performance of green building
projects as well as the critical factors that should be highlighted when constructing
green building projects. Also, strategies to overcome the negative impact of these
factors allow practitioners to better deal with the potential causes of delay and to attain
the schedule performance.
Future study would attempt to set up a benchmarking system for green building
performance, thus allowing the practitioners to compare their performance with the
reference point and helping them learn from the leading organizations through the
adaptation of best practices. Additionally, the organizational issues of contractors or
owners involved in the trend of going green are worth investigation because in the
real-word circumstances it is these organizational issues (e.g. motivation, learning,
culture, and leadership) that influence their capability to go green.

References
Abd El-Razek, M.E., Bassioni, H. and Mobarak, A. (2008), Causes of delay in building
construction projects in Egypt, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol. 134 No. 11, pp. 831-841.
Ahmed, S.M., Azhar, S., Kappagantula, P. and Gollapudi, D. (2003), Delays in construction:
a brief study of the Florida construction industry, in Berryman, C.W. (Ed.), Proceedings of
the 39th Annual Conference, Associated Schools of Construction, University of Nebraska
Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, pp. 257-266.
Akinsola, A., Potts, K., Ndekugri, I. and Harris, F. (1997), Identification and evaluation of factors
influencing variations on building projects, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 263-267.
Akintoye, A. (2000), Analysis of factors influencing project cost estimating practice,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 77-89.
Al-Khalil, M.I. and Al-Ghafly, M.A. (1999), Important causes of delay in public utility projects in
Saudi Arabia, Construction Management & Economics, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 647-655.
 Al-Momani, A.H. (2000), Construction delay: a quantitative analysis, International Journal of Green
Project Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 51-59.
building
Arditi, D., Akan, G.T. and Gurdamar, S. (1985), Reasons for delays in public projects in Turkey, projects
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 171-181.
Assaf, S.A. and Al-Hejji, S. (2006), Causes of delay in large construction projects, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 349-357.
BCA (2009), 2nd Green Building Masterplan, Building and Construction Authority, Singapore. 343
BCA (2013a), $100 Million Green Mark Incentive Scheme For Existing Buildings (GMIS-EB),
available at: www.bca.gov.sg/greenmark/gmiseb.html (accessed December 1, 2014).
BCA (2013b), Enhanced $20 Million Green Mark Incentive Scheme For New Buildings (GMIS-
NB), available at: www.bca.gov.sg/greenmark/gmis.html (accessed January 15, 2014).
BCA (2014a), 3rd Green Building Masterplan, Building and Construction Authority, Singapore.
Downloaded by Central Queensland University At 03:19 22 May 2015 (PT)

BCA (2014b), Construction demand for 2014 to remain strong, available at: www.bca.gov.sg/
Newsroom/pr09012014_BCA.html (accessed February 1, 2014).
BCA (2014c), Construction productivity and capability fund, available at: www.bca.gov.sg/cpcf/
cpcf.html (accessed April 2, 2014).
Belassi, W. and Tukel, O.I. (1996), A new framework for determining critical success/failure
factors in projects, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 141-151.
Belout, A. (1998), Effects of human resource management on project effectiveness and success:
toward a new conceptual framework, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 16
No. 1, pp. 21-26.
Chan, D.W. and Kumaraswamy, M.M. (1997), A comparative study of causes of time overruns in
Hong Kong construction projects, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 15
No. 1, pp. 55-63.
Chua, D., Kog, Y. and Loh, P. (1999), Critical success factors for different project objectives,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 125 No. 3, pp. 142-150.
Dascalaki, E. and Santamouris, M. (2002), On the potential of retrofitting scenarios for offices,
Building and Environment, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 557-567.
Dissanayaka, S.M. and Kumaraswamy, M.M. (1999), Evaluation of factors affecting time and
cost performance in Hong Kong building projects, Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 287-298.
Enshassi, A., Al-Najjar, J. and Kumaraswamy, M. (2009), Delays and cost overruns in the
construction projects in the Gaza Strip, Journal of Financial Management of Property and
Construction, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 126-151.
Frimpong, Y., Oluwoye, J. and Crawford, L. (2003), Causes of delay and cost overruns in
construction of groundwater projects in a developing countries: Ghana as a case study,
International Journal of project management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 321-326.
Glavinich, T.E. (2008), Contractors Guide to Green Building Construction, John Wiley & Sons.,
Hoboken, NJ.
Gou, Z., Prasad, D. and Siu-Yu Lau, S. (2013), Are green buildings more satisfactory and
comfortable?, Habitat International, Vol. 39, pp. 156-161.
Gravetter, F. and Forzano, L.-A. (2012), Research Methods for the Behavioral Sciences, Cengage
Learning, Belmont, CA.
GreenBiz (2005), Green Building Technique: A Two-Minute Briefing on Key Business
Environmental Issues, GreenBiz Group Inc., Oakland, CA.
Hansen, S.J. (2006), Performance Contracting: Expanding Horizons, Fairmont Press, Lilburn, GA.
 ECAM He, H.Z. and Kua, H.W. (2013), Lessons for integrated household energy conservation policy
from Singapores southwest eco-living program, Energy Policy, Vol. 55, pp. 105-116.
22,3
Hwang, B.G. and Leong, L.P. (2013), Comparison of schedule delay and causal factors between
traditional and green construction projects, Technological and Economic Development of
Economy, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 310-330.
Hwang, B.G. and Tan, J.S. (2012), Green building project management: obstacles and solutions
344 for sustainable development, Sustainable Development, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 335-349.
Hwang, B.G. and Yang, S. (2014), Rework and schedule performance: a profile of incidence,
impact, causes and solutions, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management,
Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 190-205.
Hwang, B.G., Zhao, X. and Goh, K.J. (2014a), Investigating the client-related rework in building
projects: the case of Singapore, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 32
Downloaded by Central Queensland University At 03:19 22 May 2015 (PT)

No. 4, pp. 698-708.

Hwang, B.G., Zhao, X. and Ng, S.Y. (2013), Identifying the critical factors affecting schedule
performance of public housing projects, Habitat International, Vol. 38, pp. 214-221.
Hwang, B.G., Zhao, X. and Toh, L.P. (2014b), Risk management in small construction projects in
Singapore: status, barriers and impact, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 116-124.
Iyer, K. and Jha, K. (2006), Critical factors affecting schedule performance: evidence from Indian
construction projects, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 132
No. 8, pp. 871-881.
Kadir, M.A., Lee, W., Jaafar, M., Sapuan, S. and Ali, A. (2005), Factors affecting construction
labour productivity for Malaysian residential projects, Structural Survey, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 42-54.
Kaming, P.F., Olomolaiye, P.O., Holt, G.D. and Harris, F.C. (1997), Factors influencing
construction time and cost overruns on high-rise projects in Indonesia, Construction
Management & Economics, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 83-94.
Kats, G., Alevantis, L., Berman, A., Mills, E. and Perlman, J. (2003), The Costs and Financial
Benefits of Green Buildings, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, Westborough, MA.
Koushki, P.A., Al-Rashid, K. and Kartam, N. (2005), Delays and cost increases in the construction
of private residential projects in Kuwait, Construction Management and Economics,
Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 285-294.
Kua, H.W. and Wong, S.E. (2012), Lessons for integrated household energy conservation policies
from an intervention study in Singapore, Energy Policy, Vol. 47, pp. 49-56.
Le, Y., Shan, M., Chan, A.P.C. and Hu, Y. (2014), Investigating the causal relationships between
causes of and vulnerabilities to corruption in the Chinese public construction sector,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 140 No. 9, p. 05014007.
Ling, F.Y.Y. (2014), Effect of trust and satisfaction on interpersonal relationships: comparative
study of capitalist and socialist countries, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering
Education and Practice, Vol. 10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000235, p. 04014015, available
at: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29EI.1943-5541.0000235
Ling, F.Y.Y., Low, S.P., Wang, S.Q. and Lim, H.H. (2009), Key project management practices
affecting Singaporean firms project performance in China, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 59-71.
Lo, T.Y., Fung, I.W. and Tung, K.C. (2006), Construction delays in Hong Kong civil engineering
projects, Journal of Construction Engineering and management, Vol. 132 No. 6,
pp. 636-649.
 Long, L.-H., Lee, Y.D. and Lee, J.Y. (2008a), Delay and cost overruns in Vietnam large Green
construction projects: a comparison with other selected countries, KSCE Journal of Civil
Engineering, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 367-377.
building
projects
Long, L.-H., Young, D.L. and Lee, J.Y. (2008b), Delay and cost overruns in Vietnam large
construction projects: a comparison with other selected countries, KSCE Journal of Civil
Engineering, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 367-377.
Low, S.P., Liu, J. and He, S. (2009), External risk management practices of Chinese 345
construction firms in Singapore, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 85-95.
Lowe, J.A., Duckworth, M. and Jones, P. (2006), Editorial overview innovation, productivity
and the art of risk management, Current Opinion in Drug Discovery & Development, Vol. 9
No. 5, pp. 549-550.
Manavazhi, M.R. and Adhikari, D.K. (2002), Material and equipment procurement delays in
Downloaded by Central Queensland University At 03:19 22 May 2015 (PT)

highway projects in Nepal, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20 No. 8,

pp. 627-632.
Mezher, T.M. and Tawil, W. (1998), Causes of delays in the construction industry in
Lebanon, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 5 No. 3,
pp. 252-260.
Miller, E. and Buys, L. (2008), Retrofitting commercial office buildings for sustainability:
tenants perspectives, Journal of Property Investment & Finance, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 552-561.
Miller, G.A. (1956), The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity
for processing information, Psychological Review, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 81-97.
Ning, Y. and Ling, F.Y.Y. (2013), Boosting public construction project outcomes through
relational transactions, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 140
No. 1, pp. 04013037-04013037-10, available at: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%
28ASCE%29CO.1943-7862.0000780
Odeyinka, H. and Yusif, A. (1997), The causes and effects of construction delays on completion
cost of housing projects in Nigeria, Journal of Financial Management of Property and
Construction, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 31-44.
Ott, R. and Longnecker, M. (2008), An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis,
Cengage Learning, Belmont, CA.
Sambasivan, M. and Soon, Y.W. (2007), Causes and effects of delays in Malaysian
construction industry, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25 No. 5,
pp. 517-526.
Semple, C., Hartman, F.T. and Jergeas, G. (1994), Construction claims and disputes: causes and
cost/time overruns, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 120 No. 4,
pp. 785-795.
Songer, A.D. and Molenaar, K.R. (1997), Project characteristics for successful public-sector
design-build, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 123 No. 1,
pp. 34-40.
Sweis, G., Sweis, R., Abu Hammad, A. and Shboul, A. (2008), Delays in construction projects:
the case of Jordan, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26 No. 6,
pp. 665-674.
Trauner, T.J. (2009), Construction Delays: Understanding Them Clearly, Analyzing Them
Correctly, Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington, MA.
Walker, D.H.T. (1995), An investigation into construction time performance, Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 263-274.
 ECAM Wu, P., Low, S.P. and Jin, X. (2013), Identification of non-value adding (NVA) activities in precast
concrete installation sites to achieve low-carbon installation, Resources, Conservation and
22,3 Recycling, Vol. 81, pp. 60-70.
Zhao, X., Hwang, B.G. and Low, S.P. (2013), Critical success factors for enterprise risk
management in Chinese construction companies, Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 31 No. 12, pp. 1199-1214.
346 About the authors
Dr Bon-Gang Hwang is an Associate Professor in the Department of Building at the National
University of Singapore (NUS). He has several years of experience in the construction industry in
South Korea, USA, and Singapore. Dr Hwangs current research interests are in the areas of
sustainable construction project management, performance assessment and improvement, and
risk management.
Dr Xianbo Zhao is a Lecturer (Built Environment) in the School of Engineering and
Downloaded by Central Queensland University At 03:19 22 May 2015 (PT)

Technology at the Central Queensland University, Australia. He holds the PhD Degree from the
National University of Singapore (NUS). His current research interests are in the areas of risk
management, sustainable construction, as well as rework and productivity. Dr Xianbo Zhao is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: b.zhao@cqu.edu.au
Lene Lay Ghim Tan is a Customer Service Executive at the Pacific International Lines,
Singapore.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com