• No results found

Review of the Findings 97

In document LIST OF FIGURES (Page 113-120)

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.2. Review of the Findings 97

5.2.1 The study revealed that an extremely high proportion of public sector building projects in Botswana experience delays. As a matter of fact, 100% of the projects surveyed experienced delays. This can be compared to 70% in Saudi Arabia, 80% in Jordan, and 88% in Australia. The prevalence of delays in completion of projects in the Botswana public sector clearly appears to be quite high.

5.2.2 Projects undertaken by citizen contractors experienced higher levels of delay when compared with projects carried out by non-citizen contractors. The

data collected showed that projects carried out by citizen contractors, on average, required an additional period equivalent to 90% of the planned building period to complete as compared to an additional 53% for the non-citizen projects.

When the above is rated against the extent of delay in other countries, for instance over 40% in Australia [Chan and Kumaraswamy:1997], 92% for small projects in Nigeria, and 59% for big projects in Nigeria [Ogunlana:1996], the conclusion is that the performance of the non-citizen group appears to be reasonable. The performance of the citizen sample group, however, appears to be below average, only comparable with the performance on small Nigerian projects whose value is less than 10 million Naira (approximately Pula 350, 000.00). It is noted that this study investigated projects carried out by medium to large contractors, who carry out work exceeding Pula four million (P4000,000).

The above conclusions have been arrived at based on comparisons of data from studies carried out in only two other countries. The conclusion may not therefore be absolutely valid. More valid and reliable conclusions may have required data from previous studies in more countries, not just two countries as is the case here.

5.2.3 The level of inexcusable delays was higher on projects undertaken by 100% citizen firms as compared to these carried out by non-citizen firms. This was illustrated by the following findings:

• The average proportion of inexcusable delays to total delay was about 48%

for projects carried out by citizen firms as compared to 19% for these carried out by non-citizen firms.

• The average proportion of inexcusable delay to planned building period was about 48% for projects undertaken by citizen firms as compared to about 13% for the non-citizen projects.

5.2.4 The proportion of excusable delays to the planned building period for the citizen group and the non-citizen group was 43% and 40% respectively. Clearly, there is very little difference between 40% and 43%. The conclusion to be drawn

from this is that since the impact of excusable delay factors on the two groups of projects appear to be equal, the higher level of delays on projects carried out by citizen contractors is due to the influence of inexcusable delay factors. Table 36 and figure 9 summarises the findings.

TABLE 36: A General Comparison of Projects Undertaken by Citizen Firms and those Undertaken by Non-Citizen Firms

Variable Citizen

Firms

Non- Citizen Firms Average inexcusable delay expressed as a % of total

delay

48 19

Average excusable delay expressed as a % of total delay

52 71

Average inexcusable delay expressed as a % of planned building period

48 13

Average excusable delay expressed as a % of planned building period

43 40

Average total delay expressed as a % of planned building period

90 53

Average total delay expressed as a % of actual building period

47 35

Average planned building period expressed as a % of actual building period.

53 65

FIGURE 9: A General Comparison of Projects Undertaken by Citizen Firms and those Undertaken by Non-Citizen Firms

Average inexcusable delay expressed as a % of total delay

Average excusable delay expressed as a % of total delay

Average inexcusable delay expressed as a % of planned building period

Average excusable delay expressed as a % of planned building period

Average total delay as a % of planned building period

Average total delay expressed as a % to actual building period

Average planned building period expressed as a % of actual building period

5.2.5 Inexcusable Causes of Delay

Twenty-two inexcusable delay factors were recorded among the sample of citizen projects. The most prominent of them, in terms of their impact, were the following:

• Poor management

• Late procurement of materials

• Inadequate labour on site

• Poor workmanship

• Poor supervision

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Citizen Firms Non-Citizen Firms

• Contractors cash flow problems

• Lack of diligence

• Lack of construction knowledge

• Poor co-ordination with sub-contractors

• Inadequate plant/equipment on site

Twelve inexcusable delay factors were recorded among the sample of non- citizen projects. The most significant, in terms of their relative impact on the project schedules, were the following:

• Late procurement of materials

• Poor management

• Poor co-ordination with sub-contractors

• Delay in commencement

• Inadequate labour on site

The inexcusable delay factors that appeared to predominantly affect only projects undertaken by citizen contractors are as follows:

• Poor workmanship resulting in re-work

• Poor supervision

• Contractors cash-flow problems

• Inadequate plant/equipment on site

• Lack of construction knowledge

• Lack of diligence

• Poor financial management

The following inexcusable delay factors appeared to impact adversely upon projects within both sample groups. These delay factors, however, affected citizen projects more severely.

• Poor management

• Late procurement of materials

• Inadequate labour on site

The conclusion based upon the foregoing discussion was that the following inexcusable delay factors were responsible for the higher levels of inexcusable delay among the citizen sample of projects. As discussed earlier, the differences in the pattern that was displayed by the data from the two sample groups of projects appeared to have been caused by higher levels of inexcusable delays among the citizen sample of projects. It, therefore, appeared logical to conclude that the same delay factors were responsible for the higher level of delays on the citizen sample of projects.

• Late procurement of materials

• Poor management

• Poor supervision

• Poor workmanship resulting in re-do

• Contractors cash flow problems

• Poor financial management

• Lack of construction knowledge

• Lack of diligence

• Inadequate labour on site

• Inadequate plant/equipment

Of the above delay factors, however, the following two appeared to be the most significant, having, on average, caused a combined delay equivalent to 22% of the planned building period.

• Late procurement of materials

• Poor management

5.2.6 Comparison of the findings of the study with the hypotheses

The first hypothesis was that the extent of delays in completion of building projects in the Botswana public sector is generally high among projects undertaken and completed by 100% citizen contractors. According to the findings

of this study, the hypothesis appears to be true. It was found that the average total delay among projects carried out and completed by citizen contractors was equivalent to 90% of the planned contractual building period. Citizen contractors were also on average responsible for 48% of the total delay experienced on their projects while the employer or the government was responsible for 31% of the delays. The rest of the delays were beyond the responsibility of both the contractors and the employer or the government.

The second hypothesis was that the extent of delays in completion of building projects in the Botswana public sector is generally low among projects undertaken and completed by non-citizen contractors. According to the findings of this study, the hypothesis appears to be true. It was found that the average total delay among projects carried out and completed by non-citizen contractors was equivalent to 53% of the planned contractual building period. Non-citizen contractors were also on average responsible for 19% of the total delay experienced on their projects while the employer or the government was responsible for 57% of the delays. The rest of the delays were beyond the responsibility of both the contractors and the employer or the government.

The third hypothesis was that the reason for the relatively higher extent of delays among projects carried out and completed by 100% citizen contractors was poor management. The results of this study appear to support this view. A look at the ten delay factors that caused the difference in performance between the citizen contractors and the non-citizen contractors reveals that eight of them are management related whereas the other two appear to be the result of technical shortcomings. It is also evident from the findings of this study that the total contribution of the two non-management related delay factors to the poor performance among the citizen projects is insignificant when compared with the contribution of the eight management related delay factors. It appears therefore that poor management is indeed the cause of the higher rate of delays among building projects undertaken and completed by 100% citizen contractors as was stated in the hypothesis.

The main problem and the sub-problems of this research study have also been solved. The extent of delay for the citizen group was found to be above average whereas that of the non-citizen group was average, the average extent of delay being that most commonly recorded in other countries as per the literature reviewed. The inexcusable delay factors, affecting both groups of contractors, is as discussed under section 5.2.5. Finally, a comparison of the two groups of contractors in terms of the inexcusable delay factors revealed that poor management by contractors is to blame for the high incidence of delay among projects carried out and completed by the 100% citizen group of contractors.

In document LIST OF FIGURES (Page 113-120)