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

net/publication/312087827

QUANTITY SURVEYOR'S EXPERIENCE AND CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

PERFORMANCE

Conference Paper · January 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 1,360

3 authors, including:

Ayokunle OLUBUNMI Olanipekun

Queensland University of Technology
26 PUBLICATIONS   132 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Delivery performance of green building projects View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ayokunle OLUBUNMI Olanipekun on 05 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 QUANTITY SURVEYOR'S EXPERIENCE AND
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT PERFORMANCE
1
Temitope Awoyemi, 2Olaniyi Aje and 3Ayokunle Olanipekun
Department of Quantity Surveying, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria
1
temitopeawoyemi@yahoo.com, 2aje_niyi2002@yahoo.com and 3olanipekun1439@yahoo.com

Abstract
Construction industry clients have always expressed preference for experience in
employing quantity surveyors (QSs). The reasons are connected with the perception of
clients on the vital cost and time management responsibilities of QSs on construction
projects. This research therefore aims to provide a scientific basis for the clients’
perception by establishing a relationship between QSs’ experience and performance of
construction projects in terms of cost and time. Sixty-one (61) questionnaires were
administered randomly to selected QSs in Lagos to assess their involvement in building,
civil and heavy engineering projects. Archival data were sought on 33 completed projects
on cost and time performance, which were regressed against the experience variables of
number of years in practice and the level of academic/professional qualification.
Findings reveal that QSs are involved in heavy and civil engineering projects, but mostly
in building projects as indicated in their group mean scores of 2.77, 3.23 and 3.78
respectively. The resulting regression model revealed that QSs’ academic/professional
qualification is a predictor of the cost performance of construction projects with R 2 =
0.99. While the number of years a QS has spent in practice has no relationship with cost
and time performance of construction projects, clients are therefore implored to shy away
from experience bias and focus more on the technical ability of QSs in engaging their
services in construction project delivery.

Keywords: Construction Projects, Experience, Performance, Quantity Surveyors

INTRODUCTION
In construction, project participants have been directly linked to the measure of project
success achieved (Eddie, Cheng, Heng & Paul, 2007), with individual or personnel
considered as a key component of project performance (Hemanta & Ming, 2007).
According to Atkinson, Waterhouse and Wells (1997), successful construction project
performance is achieved when stakeholders meet their requirements, individually and
collectively. In the wake, the construction industry clients have always expressed their
preference for the more experienced QSs than the less experienced, giving the verdict in
favour of the number of years spent in practice. The reasons are not unconnected with the
cost and time management responsibilities of QSs on construction projects. This is
substantiated Oke, Timothy & Olaniyi (2010), who described QS as a professional
trained, qualified and experienced in dealing with problems relating to construction cost,
management and communication in the construction industry.
Priyajanaka (2010) further explained that the QS possesses specific training and
experience that provides a general set of skills that are then applied to a diverse variety of
problems predominantly related to costs and contracts on construction projects.
Irrespective of the ubiquitous presence of QSs on construction projects, Ogunsemi and
Jagboro (2006) maintained that one of the most serious problems the Nigerian
construction industry is faced with is project time overrun, with attendant consequence of
completing projects at sums higher than the initial sum. This, without saying, results in
poor performance of construction projects, leaving many a client unsatisfied, (Chimwaso,
2000).

Proceedings of the CIB W107 2014 International Conference, Lagos, Nigeria, 28th-30th January, 2014
295
 Quantity surveyor's experience and construction project performance

QSs experiences and its effect on project performance have attracted minimal attention in
the literatures. The closest being Odusami, Iyagba & Omirin (2003) who imply that the
QS can be a project leader, but the professional qualification, leadership style deployed
and team composition are significant to the overall project performance. Similarly, Poon
(2003) suggested that to achieve an improved performance of construction projects, QSs
must be disposed in an ethical manner. The concern of this paper is the preference of
clients for experienced QSs in the practical scene, but which remains unproved from the
scientific point of view. However, since clients’ preference remains germane in the
construction industry, an empirical basis to support or refute the clients’ perception of
QSs’ experience is carried out. Specifically, this paper seeks to establish a relationship
between QS's experience and cost and time performances of construction projects by
providing answers to the questions below:
1. What is the level of involvement of QSs in building, civil and heavy engineering
projects?
2. What are the relationships between QSs’ experience variables of number of years
in practice and academic/professional qualification, and cost and time perfor-
mance of building projects?
The paper starts with the dissection of the roles of QSs in building, civil and heavy
engineering projects. The contributions of QSs to construction project performance were
also reviewed. Thereafter and on the basis of the methodology devised, the findings to the
research questions were discussed and concluded.
ROLES OF QUANTITY SURVEYORS (QSs) IN CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS
The construction industry has three main sections, namely: building works, civil
engineering works and heavy engineering works. Ayodele (2012) believes the QS is the
cost, procurement and contract manager of each of the three sections of the construction
industry. Similarly, Ashworth & Hogg (2007) stated that the traditional role of QSs can
be described as a measure and value system. The traditional role identified include:
preliminary estimation, cost planning, procurement advice, measurement and
quantification, contract documentation - especially bills of quantities, cost control during
construction, interim valuations and payments, financial reporting, final account
preparation and agreement and settlement of contractual claims.
Some evolving supplementary roles were also stated and they include the following:
investment appraisal, advice on cost limits and budgets, whole life costing, value
management, risk analysis, insolvency services, cost engineering services, subcontract
administration, environmental services measurement and costing, technical auditing,
planning and supervision, valuation for insurance purposes, project management,
facilities management, administering maintenance programmes, advice on contractual
disputes, planning supervisor, employers’ agent. Summarily and from a generic view,
Ayodele (2012) categorised the roles of QSs into pre-contract, post contract and general
roles, and are presented in Table 1 below:

Proceedings of the CIB W107 2014 International Conference, Lagos, Nigeria, 28th-30th January, 2014
296
 Quantity surveyor's experience and construction project performance

Table 1: Roles of Quantity Surveyors (QS)

Pre Contract Post Contract General
 Preliminary cost advice  Value construction works  Technical auditing
 Investment appraisal  Valuing for fluctuation  Assessing replacement
 Feasibility studies  Preparation and agreeing accounts values for insurance
 Cost planning with contactors purposes
 Project cost estimates  Preparing expenditure statements for  Condition surveys
 Preparing of Tender documents tax and accounting  Property management
 Advising on contractor selec-  Giving expert advice in arbitration  Asset management
tion method and disputes  Property condition ap-
 Advising on procurement  Project management praisal
method  Risk management  Facilities Management
 Obtaining or negotiating ten-  Risk management  Environment impact
ders  Financial analysis analysis
 Assessing replacement value for in-
surance
Source: Ayodele (2012)
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT PERFORMANCE AND QUANTITY
SURVEYORS' CONTRIBUTIONS
Project performance evaluation is essential to determine if a project is a success or failure
(Cheng, Li and Fox, 2007). Yates and Eskander (2002) defined a successful project as a
project that has been completed on schedule, within budget, within scope and satisfied the
required quality. Time, cost and quality are, however, the three predominant, but historic
performance evaluation dimensions. Thus, Atkinson et al., (1997) calls for a break from
the 50-year old tradition of measuring project performance (success and failure) in terms
of the cost, time, and quality. Hence, there have been further suggestions by various
authors for assessing construction project performance. Cheung, Suen & Cheung (2004)
proposed other performance indicators to include client satisfaction, client changes,
business performance, health and safety. In a close relation to the traditional measures,
Storms (2008) identified earned value management (EVM) as a three-dimensional
measurement of project performance. The three dimensions are earned value, planned
value, and actual cost.
In terms of QSs’ contribution to construction project delivery, Poon, Potts & Cooper,
(2001) revealed that the QS is important in the design process of construction. In the
study, while not undermining the roles of the Architect, the respondent QSs explicitly
expressed the opinion that ‘QSs are the team leaders nowadays’, adding that it is now a
common practice to employ the QS as the first consultant in building projects.
Furthermore, the QS is said to be responsible for preparing cost advice and the cost plan;
cost being the most critical pre-determinant factor of the feasibility of a project. Eke
(2006) observed that the fundamental role of the QS in engineering infrastructure is
similar to that undertaken in building; expertise in cost control, embracing reporting and
monitoring functions and financial management procedures, are of paramount
importance.
Male (1999) emphasizes that the distinctive competencies of the QS are associated with
measurement and calculation which provides the basis for the proper cost management of
forecasting, analysing, planning, controlling and accounting, and these competencies are
expended within the frame of construction project delivery. In Nigeria, Oke et al. (2010)
observed that Nigerian QSs of older generation were more of experts and experienced in
costing, cost monitoring and control as it relates to building projects which they were
respected for by their sisters’ professionals. Nkado and Meyer (2001) submit that QSs
add value primarily to the financial and contractual management of construction projects
at the pre-construction, construction and post-construction stages and thereby contribute
to overall construction project performance by acquiring, developing and deploying

Proceedings of the CIB W107 2014 International Conference, Lagos, Nigeria, 28th-30th January, 2014
297
 Quantity surveyor's experience and construction project performance

appropriate competencies. Poon (2003) investigates the relationship between QSs’

professional ethics and construction project performance. The research concluded that
‘maintaining the high level of surveyors’ professional ethics can contribute to the high
level of construction project performance’. Anago (2006) identified quantity surveying,
as a basically cost-literate profession, concerned with financial probity in the
conceptualization, planning, and execution of development projects.
METHODOLOGY
This paper initially adopts a survey research design. Yin (2009) states that survey design
provide the best research method when prevalence and the incidence of a phenomenon is
of interest and therefore employed in this study. In this paper, the prevalence of
involvement of QSs in the various aspects of building, civil and heavy engineering
projects is of interest. Using the approach, a sample size of 61 respondents was derived
from the 155 registered QS firms with the Nigerian Institute of Quantity Surveyors
(NIQS) using the sample size formula in Aje et al., (2009). Sixty-one (61) questionnaires
were thus sent randomly to selected consultant QSs within the firms in Lagos, Nigeria to
assess their involvement in building, civil and heavy engineering projects.
The questionnaires were structured into two sections. The first section collects
information on the background of the respondents, while the second section assesses the
significance of QSs roles in building, civil and heavy engineering projects, and their level
of involvement. Fifty-one (51) questionnaires were found useful, representing 83.6%
response rate, and were analysed with mean item score. Archival data were also collected
on the cost and time performance of 33 completed building projects. The archival data
collected was regressed against the experience variables of number of years in practice
and the level of academic/professional qualification of the participating QSs. The
regression analysis used was the linear regression. Iteration of regression using double log
values was carried out to ensure a suitable model was developed, and the adjusted R2 and
the standard error of the estimate were used in interpreting the relationship between the
independent and independent variables. The results of analyses are hence presented.

RESULTS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

From the background information supplied by the respondents, 21.6% of the respondents
have postgraduate qualifications while about 76.5% have minimum of HND/BSc degree.
7.8% occupy the position of Managing/Principal partners of their firms, 9.8% are
Associate partners, and 56.9% are Senior staff while 25.5% of the respondents are
Trainees. On the number of years experience in construction industry, 62.7% of the
respondents have spent less than 10 years in construction industry, 15.7% have between
10 and 19 years of experience, the same percentage of 15.7% also have between 20 and
29 years of experience and a few of 5.9% have between 30 and 39 years of industrial
experience in construction practices. The table below summarises the background
information of respondents.
Table 2: Background Information
Category Frequency Percent (%)

Academic Qualification ND 1 2.0

HND 14 27.5
BSc/BTech 25 49.0
MSc/MTech 11 21.6

Total 51 100.0
Professional Qualification
NSE Graduate member 1 2.0
Corporate member - -
NIQS Graduate member 32 62.6
Corporate member 15 29.4

Proceedings of the CIB W107 2014 International Conference, Lagos, Nigeria, 28th-30th January, 2014
298
 Quantity surveyor's experience and construction project performance

NIOB Graduate member 1 2.0

Corporate member 1 2.0
None 1 2.0
Total 51 100.0

Status of respondents in Managing/Principal

organization partner 4 7.8
Associate partner 5 9.8
Senior staff 29 56.9
Trainee 13 25.5
Total 51 100.0
General industrial experience
Less than 10yrs 32 62.7
10 - 19yrs 8 15.7
20 - 29yrs 8 15.7
30 - 40yrs 3 5.9
Total 51 100.0

Experience of QSs in Building, Civil and Heavy Engineering Projects

The assessment of QSs' experience in the three tiers of project development was
done by computing the mean item score (MIS) of the frequency of their
involvement in a comprehensive list of identified roles QSs perform in
construction projects. The MIS were hence ranked accordingly. The result is
contained in the table below.
Table 3: Frequency of involvement of QSs in construction projects
Civil Engineering Heavy/Industrial
Building Projects Projects Engineering Projects

Roles of QSs Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank

Construction cost and financial
management 3.95 12 3.31 11 2.84 9
Construction project management 3.51 16 3.02 16 2.79 15
Contract auditing 2.93 20 2.83 18 2.47 20
Contract dispute resolution 2.61 21 2.51 22 2.49 19
Contract selection advice and
documentation 4.07 9 3.29 12 2.86 7
Contract team leadership 3.25 17 2.90 17 2.39 22
Contractor selection advice 4.00 10 3.37 9 2.80 14
Cost planning and cost control 4.28 7 3.10 15 2.81 12
Facilities management 3.04 19 2.56 21 2.45 21
Fluctuation assessment and
recommendation 3.61 15 3.24 13 2.63 17
Preliminary cost studies and advice 3.79 14 3.40 7 2.89 5
Preparation of bill of quantities 4.76 1 3.68 1 2.97 3
Preparation of final account 4.25 8 3.38 8 3.00 2
Preparation of financial statement 4.32 5 3.42 6 2.85 8
Preparation of tender documents 4.50 3 3.64 4 2.95 4
Project feasibility and viability appraisal 4.00 10 3.24 13 2.78 16
Project procurement advice and
documentation 3.86 13 3.33 10 2.89 5
Project re-measurement and valuation 4.64 2 3.67 2 3.06 1
Specification writing 3.05 18 2.79 19 2.81 12
Tender examination, analysis and report 4.40 4 3.65 3 2.84 9
Value engineering and management 2.53 22 2.73 20 2.56 18
Variation claims assessment and
recommendation 4.30 6 3.64 4 2.84 9

Table 3 clearly reveals that QSs are most frequently involved in preparation of bill of
quantities for building and civil engineering projects with MIS of 4.76 and 3.68

Proceedings of the CIB W107 2014 International Conference, Lagos, Nigeria, 28th-30th January, 2014
299
 Quantity surveyor's experience and construction project performance

respectively, but are seen to be most frequently involved in re-measurement and valuation
of heavy/industrial engineering projects, having a MIS of 3.06. Conversely, QSs are
observed to be hardly involved in value engineering and management, contract dispute
resolution and contract team leadership in building, civil and heavy/industrial engineering
projects respectively.
Measurement and pricing of construction works are important functions provided by QSs
(Olatunji, Sher & Gu, 2010), in fact, Westcott & Burnside (2003) opined that it is
measurement or quantification that distinguishes the QS from the architect as designer
and the engineer who delivers function. But it is clarity that QSs in Nigeria are yet to
advance from the conventional and traditional roles in construction projects, given the
increasing and changing demands in recent times. This is because the result presented
does not flow in tune with the submissions that the role of the QS is fast changing into
team lead consultancy (Poon et al., 2001), as well as value management and construction
dispute resolution (Nkado, 2000).
In another computation, the mean item scores of the frequencies of involvement of QSs in
the three main categories of project development were computed and the outcomes
presented as follows.
Table 4: Experience of QSs in construction projects
Project Classification Mean Rank
Frequency of involvement in building projects 3.80 1
Frequency of involvement in civil engineering projects 3.21 2
Frequency of involvement in heavy/industrial engineering projects 2.77 3

It is evident from Table 4 that QSs are most frequently involved in building projects,
ranking first with MIS of 3.80 positioned above civil engineering projects with MIS of
3.21 and are observed to be least involved in heavy/industrial engineering projects with
MIS of 2.77. As observed, QSs are most frequently involved in building projects
compared to civil and heavy/industrial engineering works. It can therefore be inferred that
QSs are most experienced in building projects. The increasing need and demand for
housing might the a responsible reason for this owing to the fact that the country is still a
developing nation. This flows in tune with Olusoga (2006) which observed that Nigerian
QSs of older generation were more of experts and experienced in costing, cost monitoring
and control as it relates to building projects which they were respected for by their sisters’
professionals.

Relationship between QSs’ experience and Construction Project Performance

In establishing the relationship between QS's experience and construction project
performance, cost and time information sought on completed building projects were
regressed against the experience variables of number of years of QS in practice and the
level of academic/professional qualification attained. The results stand as below.

Proceedings of the CIB W107 2014 International Conference, Lagos, Nigeria, 28th-30th January, 2014
300
 Quantity surveyor's experience and construction project performance

Table 5: Relationship between qs’s experience and construction project cost

performance
Coefficientsa

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) -3.259E8 2.795E8 -1.166 .254
QS years of experience 2.145E6 6.555E6 .007 .327 .746
Academic/Professional
1.471E7 4.205E7 .008 .350 .729
qualification
Initial project cost 1.280 .033 .964 38.877 .000
Planned project duration
3.326E6 1.757E6 .050 1.893 .069
(weeks)
a. Dependent Variable: Project completion cost
Note: R = 0.994, R2 = 0.989 and Adjusted R2 = 0.987

Table 6: Relationship between qs’s experience and construction project time

performance
Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
2 (Constant) -16.317 17.929 -.910 .371
QS years of experience -.008 .420 -.001 -.020 .984
Academic/Professional
4.768 2.697 .134 1.768 .088
qualification
Initial project cost 2.999E-9 .000 .119 1.420 .167
Planned project duration
1.020 .113 .804 9.055 .000
(weeks)
a. Dependent Variable: Actual project duration (weeks)

Note: R = 0.936, R2 = 0.876 and Adjusted R2 = 0.857

The findings from Tables 5 and 6 above reveals that QS’s experience is insignificant to
influencing construction project time and cost. Table 5 reveals the p-values of 0.726 and
0.729 for QS years of experience and the combined academic and professional
qualifications. The p-values are >0.05 significant level defined. Similarly, Table 6 reveals
the p-values of 0.984 and 0.088 for QS years of experience and the combined academic
and professional qualifications. The p-values are >0.05 significant level defined.
The findings from the regression outputs above seem to negate the rational school of
thought of influence of QSs experience on construction project delivery to time and cost.
In order to further explore the possibility of developing a suitable model that can predict
the relationship between the project completion cost and the QS’s experience, iteration
using double log was carried out. The double log regression result is therefore presented
as follows.

Proceedings of the CIB W107 2014 International Conference, Lagos, Nigeria, 28th-30th January, 2014
301
 Quantity surveyor's experience and construction project performance

Table 7: Relationship between qs’s experience and construction project cost

performance (iterated with double log values)
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
3 (Constant) -.600 .262 -2.287 .030
Initial project cost 1.000 .017 .978 58.989 .000
Planned project duration .030 .049 .010 .615 .544
QS years of experience -.017 .026 -.008 -.676 .505
Academic/Professional
.341 .120 .033 2.831 .009
qualification
a. Dependent Variable: Project completion cost
Note: R = 0.998, R2 = 0.997 and Adjusted R2 = 0.996

Table 8: Relationship between qs’s experience and construction project time

performance (iterated with double log values)
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
4 (Constant) -.631 .481 -1.313 .200
Initial project cost .043 .031 .123 1.379 .179
Planned project duration .893 .089 .854 9.978 .000
QS years of experience .037 .047 .047 .779 .443
Academic/Professional
.238 .220 .068 1.082 .289
qualification
a. Dependent Variable: Actual project duration
Note: R = 0.954, R2 = 0.911 and Adjusted R2 = 0.898
Model Acceptance Decision Rule
Adjusted R2 values and Standard Errors of Estimate were considered bases for accepting
the more suitable regression output for the models.
Adjusted R2 value
Adjusted R-squared values are estimates of the 'goodness of fit' of the line. They
represent the % variation of the data explained by the fitted line; the closer the points to
the line, the better the fit (Read, 1998). The higher the adjusted R 2, the better it is for the
model (Frost, 2013). The regression outputs in Tables 7 and 8 presented higher Adjusted
R2 values of 0.996 and 0.898 than in Tables 5 and 6 with Adjusted R2 values of 0.987 and
0.857 respectively. The regression outputs presented in Tables 7 and 8 were therefore
accepted on this basis. The explanation thereof is that the adjusted R2 values for cost and
time performance of construction projects (Tables 7 & 8) are 0.996 and 0.898
respectively, implying that 99.6% and 89.8% are the proportion of dependent variables
(cost and time performance) explained by the independent variables. For the dependent
variable of cost performance, 34.1% of the 99.6% of the variation in cost performance is
significantly explained by the academic qualification experience variable of QSs (eqn. 1).
Standard Errors of Estimate
The standard error of the estimate is a measure of the accuracy of predictions
(Stockburger, (1998); Lane, n.d.). Table 9 compares the standard errors of the estimates
to the means of the predicted values of the dependent variable, it was observed that the
Standard errors for regression outputs in Tables 7 and 8 are high and the Standard errors
for regression outputs in Tables 5 and 6 are low. The smaller the standard error of the

Proceedings of the CIB W107 2014 International Conference, Lagos, Nigeria, 28th-30th January, 2014
302
 Quantity surveyor's experience and construction project performance

estimate is, the more accurate the predictions are (Lane, n.d.). This again confirms the
decision to accept the regression outputs in Table 5 and 6 for the models.
Table 9: Summary and comparison of the Standard error of estimates of models

Mean of the predicted Standard Standard error

values of the dependent error of minus 10% of
Table ref. variable 10% of mean estimate mean Remark
Project completion cost
5 1356069164.48 135606916.45 282313076.6 146706160.22 high
7
7 19.42 1.94 0. 12 -1.82 low

Actual project duration

6 82.09 8.21 18.11 9.90 high
8 4.21 0.42 0.22 -0.20 Low

The F statistic of a model basically tests how well the model, as a whole accounts for the
dependent variable’s behaviour. Checking the model fit, the F-value of this particular
models (3 and 4) was found to be statistically significant at less than 0.0001 level. It is
concluded that the model could fit the data with Sig. value less than 0.01, and it is
significant at 99%.
Hence, from Table 7, the relationship between QS’s experience and the project cost
performance is thus presented as follows:
Pcc = -0.600 + 1.000Ipc + 0.030Ppd - 0.017Qse + 0.341Apq ---------------------------- (1)
Where Pcc means Project completion cost;
Ipc, Initial project cost;
Ppd, planned project duration;
Qse, QS’s years of experience and
Apq, QS’s Academic/Professional Qualification
It is observed that while the QS’s years of experience estimate for this model is not
significant (p = 0.505), the QS’s academic/professional qualification is found to be
significant (p = 0.009) at 99 percent confidence level. Hence, there is no significant
relationship between the QS’s years of experience and cost performance of construction
projects; but there is a significant relationship between the QS’s academic/professional
qualification and the cost performance of construction projects.
And from Table 8, the relationship between QS’s experience and the project time
performance stands as below:
Apd = -0.631 + 0.037Qse + 0.238Apq + 0.043Ipc + 0.893Ppd ----------------------- (2)
Where Apd means Actual project duration;
Qse, QS’s years of experience
Apq, QS’s Academic/Professional Qualification
Ipc, Initial project cost; and
Ppd, planned project duration
Accordingly, it could be observed that the QS’s years of experience estimate for this
model is not significant at (p = 0.443), signifying that the QS’s years of experience do not
significantly contribute to the model (actual project duration). More so, the results further
revealed that the QS’s academic/professional qualification estimate for this model is not
significant as well (p = 0.289). This also implies that the QS’s academic/professional

Proceedings of the CIB W107 2014 International Conference, Lagos, Nigeria, 28th-30th January, 2014
303
 Quantity surveyor's experience and construction project performance

qualification do not significantly contribute to the model (actual project duration). It can
therefore be inferred that there is no significant relationship between the QS’s years of
experience and overall construction project performance. This might be attributed to the
fact that training, technical knowledge and understanding of the principles of quantity
surveying, professional competence, number of projects handled, which are basic
elements that can make the years of experience count might not be justified by the same.
This agrees with the findings of Nkado and Meyer (2001), which concluded that QSs
contribute to overall construction project performance by acquiring, developing and
deploying appropriate competencies. The study further reveals that there is a significant
relationship between the QS’s academic/professional qualifications and the cost
performance of construction projects. This outcome might be due to the improved and
advanced technical skills and knowledge acquired by in higher academic exposures,
backgrounds and professional qualification trainings which might therefore enable them
to be able to identify and make strategic decisions to avoid possible causes of cost
overruns from pre-contract stages and effectively manage and control construction costs
at the post-contract and construction stages. This is supported by Fan, Ho and Ng (2001)
that more experienced and senior members of the profession with higher academic and
professional qualifications are better especially during systemic dilemma and economic
recessionary period; and Eke (2006), that skill is acquired by building on a second
educational base, by learning to use and adapt academic “theory” in the light of ‘hands on
practice and by the in-gathering’ of practical experience over a period of time.
However, no significant relationship between the QS’s academic/professional
qualifications and the time performance of construction projects was established. This
could result from delays connected to clients/project owners’ authorizations, constituted
local authorities and associated implementation problems as they occur in the
development process. Long delays can be caused by prevarication, legal or planning
difficulties, shortage or delay in supply of information, lack of funds or other resources
and a host of other reasons. All of these can place QSs in a difficult or impossible
situation, making it hard for the project to finish on time. This discussion however does
not disapprove of the importance and significance of the professional roles of QSs in
determining the project performance.
CONCLUSION
Experienced and academically grounded QSs in the construction industry provided the
responses to the research questions proposed in this research. 21.6% of the respondent
QSs have postgraduate degree qualifications; while 76.5% have minimum of HND/BSc
degree. In terms of the number of years of experience, 37.3% of the respondents jointly
have 73.5 years average number of years of experience in quantity surveying practice.
Furthermore, 66.7% of the respondents occupy senior management positions in their
respective organisations. QSs in Nigeria are still predominantly involved in traditional
roles, yet to fully respond to the emerging dynamism in construction industrial needs of
clients. This is evident in the less involvement of quantity surveyors in emerging roles.
The study also finds that QSs are most experienced in building projects judged by the
frequency of their involvement compared with civil and heavy/industrial engineering
projects. The analysis carried out reveals that QS’s years of experience is not an
important criterion to determine the cost and time performances of construction projects.
The emanating regression equations are as follows:
Pcc = -0.600 + 1.000Ipc + 0.030Ppd - 0.017Qse + 0.341Apq ------------------------ (1)
Apd = -0.631 + 0.037Qse + 0.238Apq + 0.043Ipc + 0.893Ppd ------------------------ (2)
Equations (1) and (2) present the project completion cost (Pcc) and actual project duration
(Apd) as the dependent variables in modelling the cost and time performances
respectively. Though, the number of years spent by QSs’ in practice cannot be

Proceedings of the CIB W107 2014 International Conference, Lagos, Nigeria, 28th-30th January, 2014
304
 Quantity surveyor's experience and construction project performance

undermined in ensuring the success of construction project development, it is however

not a scientific determinant of cost and time performances of construction projects. The
study further revealed that the academic/professional qualifications, being a variable of
QSs experience is significant variable to the cost performance of construction projects
with a p-value of 0.009. However, academic/professional qualification of QSs is not a
significant variable for evaluating the time performance of construction projects.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The construction industry clients are implored to shy away from experience bias,
interpreted in the number of years in practice, and focus on the technical ability of QSs in
engaging their service in construction project delivery. Since the fundamental roles of the
QS in engineering infrastructure is similar to that undertaken in building projects, QSs
should get more involved in civil and heavy/industrial engineering projects to increase
their exposures and competence in these types of projects. QSs should also seek to further
their academic qualifications and continually extend professional advancement by
attending conferences, seminar, workshop and symposiums both locally and
internationally, especially in the face of ubiquitous challenges in carrying out their
professional roles.
FURTHER STUDIES
In addition to replicating the study for the purpose of validation, further research can be
conducted considering other experience variables for the QS in predicting the project
performance.
REFERENCES
Atkinson, A.A., Waterhouse, J.H., & Wells, R.B. (1997). A Stakeholder’s Approach to
Strategic Performance Measurement. Sloan Management Review; Cambridge, 38(3),
25-37.
Aje, I.O., Odusami, K.T. & Ogunsemi, D.R. (2009). The impact of contractors’
management capability on cost and time performance of construction projects in
Nigeria. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 14(2), 171
– 187.
Anago, I. (2006, November 22 - 25). The QS and Road Map to the future. Proceedings of
the NIQS 22nd Biennial Conference on Quantity Surveying in the 21st Century –
Agenda for the Future, Calabar, Nigeria.
Ashworth, A. & Hogg, K. (2007). Willi's Practice and Procedure for the Quantity
Surveyor. 12th ed. UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Ayodele E. O. (2012). Millenium Development Goals and The 7 Point Agenda of
Nigeria’s Federal Government – Roles of Quantity Surveyors. Wilolud Journals,
5(3), 11 - 22.
Cheng, W.L., Li, H., & Fox, P. (2007). Job Performance Dimensions for Improving Final
Project Outcomes. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133(8),
592–599.
Cheung, S.O., Suen, H. C. H. & Cheung, K. K. W. (2004). “PPMS: a Web-Based
Construction Project Performance Monitoring System”. Journal of Automation in
Construction, 13(1), 361–376.
Chimwaso, D.K. (2000). An Evaluation of Cost Performance of Public Project Case of
Botwana. Conference Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
Construction Industry Development and 1st Conference of CIB TG 29 on
Construction in Developing Countries, Singapore.
Eddie, W. L., Cheng, Heng L., & Paul, F. (2007). Job Performance Dimensions for
Improving Final Project Outcomes. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 133(8), 592–599.

Proceedings of the CIB W107 2014 International Conference, Lagos, Nigeria, 28th-30th January, 2014
305
 Quantity surveyor's experience and construction project performance

Eke, T. (2006). Overview of Quantity Surveyors Role in Engineering Infrastructure

Projrects. Proceedings of the NIQS Biennial Conference, November 22 - 25,
Calabar, Nigeria.
Fan, L.C., Ho, C.M. & Ng, V.C. (2001). A Study of Surveyors’ Ethical Behaviour
Construction Management and Economic, 19, 19-36.
Frost J. (2013). Multiple Regression Analysis: Use Adjusted R-Squared and Predicted R-
Squared to Include the Correct Number of Variables. Retrieved August 22, 2013,
from blog.minitab.com/blog/adventures-in-statistics/multiple-regression-analysis-
use-adjusted- r-squared-and-predicted-r-squared-to-include the-correct-number-of-
variables
Hemanta, D. & Ming, Y. L. (2007, September 6 - 7). Measuring Performance in
Construction Projects – A Critical Analysis with an Australian Perspective.
Proceedings of the Construction and Building Research Conference of the Royal
Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Georgia Tech, Atlanta USA.
Lane D. M. (n.d.). Online Statistics Education: An Interactive Multimedia Course of
Study. Retrieved August 22, 2013, from onlinestatbook.com/2/index.html
Male, S. (1999). Professional authority, power and emerging forms of profession in
quantity surveying. Construction Management And Economics, 8, 191-204
Nkado, R.W. (2000). Competencies Required by Quantity Surveyors in South Africa.
Proceedings of Association of Researchers in Construction Management conference,
Glasgow Caledonian University, UK.
Nkado, R. & Meyer, T. (2001). Competencies of professional Quantity Surveyors: a
South African perspective. Journal of Construction Management and Economics,
19(1), 481– 491.
Odusami, K.T., Iyagba, R.R.O. & Omirin, M.M. (2003). The relationship between project
leadership, team composition and construction project performance in Nigeria.
International Journal of Project Management, 21(1), 519 – 527.
Ogunsemi, D.R. and Jagboro, G.O. (2006). Time-cost model for building projects in
Nigeria.Journal of Construction Management and Economics, 24(1), 253–258.
Oke, A. E. & Ogunsemi, D.R. (2009). Competencies of Quantity Surveyors as Value
Managers in a Developing Economy. Proceedings of The Construction and Building
Research Conference of The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, September
10 - 11, The University of Cape Town, South Africa.
Oke, A. E., Timothy, I.O. & Olaniyi, A.I. (2010). Perception of Construction
Professionals to the Performance of Nigerian Quantity Surveyors. Journal of
Building Performance, 1(1), 64 – 72.
Olatunji, O.A., Sher, W. & Gu, N. (2010). Building Information Modelling and Quantity
Surveying Practice. Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, 15(1), 67-70.
Olusoga, J. R. (2006). Key note address of a 2-day national seminar on Ethical issues and
the challenges in construction professionals’ service delivery. Nigerian Institute of
Quantity Surveyors, Ondo state chapter.
Poon, J. (2003). Professional Ethics for Surveyors and Construction Project
Performance: What We Need To Know. Proceedings of The RICS Foundation
Construction and Building Research Conference, held September 1 - 2, University
of Wolverhampton, UK.
Poon, J., Potts, K. & Cooper P. (2001). Practitioners’ Opinions on a New Construction
Process Model. An unpublished Thesis. University of Wolverhampton, United
Kingdom.
Priyajanaka, R. (2010). Quantity Surveying & Building Economics. Retrieved January 24,
2011 from http://ranjanpriyajanaka.blogspot.com/
Puspasari, T. R. (2005). Factors Causing the Poor Performance of Construction Project.
An unpublished MSc Thesis. Universiti Technologi, Malaysia. Retrieved December
21, 2010 from Universiti Technologi digital Theses.

Proceedings of the CIB W107 2014 International Conference, Lagos, Nigeria, 28th-30th January, 2014
306
 Quantity surveyor's experience and construction project performance

Read J. (1998). Linear Regression. Retrieved August 19, 2013, from

www2.le.ac.uk/departments/biology/existing/introduction-to-
statistics/prediction/linear- regression Stockburger D. W. (1998). Introductory
Statistics: Concepts, Models, and Applications. Retrieved August 22, 2013, from
www.psychstat.missouristate.edu/sbk00.htm
Storms, K. (2008). Earned Value Management Implementation in an Agency Capital
Improvement Program. Cost Engineering: The AACE International Journal of Cost
Estimation, Cost/Schedule Control, and Project Management, 50(12), 17-20.
Westcott, A. J. & Burnside, K. (2003), Education for Competency in Construction
Economics and Management. The Quantity surveyors, 43 (2) 31-35.
Yates, J. & Eskander, A. (2002). Construction Total Project Management Planning
Issues. Project Management Journal, 33(1), 37-48.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Proceedings of the CIB W107 2014 International Conference, Lagos, Nigeria, 28th-30th January, 2014
307

View publication stats