Critical Factors Influencing the Performance of Highway Projects: An Empirical Evaluation
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
- Incomplete works;
- Disruption due to encroachments in right of way;
- Socio-political reasons;
- Delayed payments;
- Work not conforming to the desired quality
3. Research Methodology
- Rationale for Using Exploratory Factor Analysis
4. Results and Analysis
5. Discussion
- Execution constraints;
- Operational factors;
- Stakeholder and political constraints;
- Design Constraints.
5.1. Execution Constraints
5.2. Operational Factors
5.3. Stakeholder and Political Constraints
5.4. Design Constraints
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bhatt, N.; Sarkar, D. Evaluation of success and risk factors for highway project performance through integrated analytical hierarchy process and fuzzy interpretive structural modelling. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2020, 20, 653–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leigland, J. Hybrid Infrastructure PPPs in India: Costs, Benefits, and Emerging Risks. J. Struct. Financ. 2020, 26, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garg, S.; Mahapatra, D. Opportunism Galore: The Case of Delhi–Gurgaon Super Connectivity Limited. In The Emerald Handbook of Public–Private Partnerships in Developing and Emerging Economies; João, L., Elsa de Morais, S., João, A., Eds.; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2017; pp. 489–512. [Google Scholar]
- Ojha, R.; Vrat, P. Integrated impact of highway infrastructure, labour productivity and circular material consumption on Indian manufacturing growth. J. Adv. Manag. Res. 2017, 14, 527–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bayat, M.; Khanzadi, M.; Nasirzadeh, F.; Chavoshian, A. Financial conflict resolution model in BOT contracts using bargaining game theory. Constr. Innov. 2019; ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dolla, T.; Laishram, B. Bundling/unbundling decision in PPP infrastructure projects–the case of Guwahati city, India. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2019, 12, 520–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jain, A.; Khan, F.; Gupta, P.; Gupta, K.; Yadav, S. Challenges faced in PPP and ham model and the need for an alternative. J. Civ. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2019, 10, 82–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Neto, D.D.C.E.S.; Cruz, C.O.; Rodrigues, F.; Silva, P. PPP Development and Governance in Latin America: Analysis of Brazilian State PPP Units. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2020, 26, 05020003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sinha, A.K.; Jha, K.N. Dispute Resolution and Litigation in PPP Road Projects: Evidence from Select Cases. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr. 2020, 12, 05019007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iyer, K.C.; Jha, K.N. Critical Factors Affecting Schedule Performance: Evidence from Indian Construction Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2006, 132, 871–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le, P.T.; Chileshe, N.; Kirytopoulos, K.; Rameezdeen, R. Investigating the significance of risks in BOT transportation projects in Vietnam. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2020, 14, 1401–1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shrestha, P.P.; Batista, J. Lessons learned in design-build and construction-manager-at-risk water and wastewater project. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr. 2020, 12, 04520002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumaraswamy, M.M.; Dissanayaka, S.M. Linking procurement systems to project priorities. Build. Res. Inf. 1998, 26, 223–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Love, P.E.D.; Irani, Z.; Smith, J.; Regan, M.; Liu, J. Cost performance of public infrastructure projects: The nemesis and nirvana of change-orders. Prod. Plan. Control 2017, 28, 1081–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Regan, M.; Smith, J.; Love, P.E.D. Financing of public private partnerships: Transactional evidence from Australian toll roads. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2017, 5, 267–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Love, P.E.; Smith, J.; Simpson, I.; Regan, M.; Olatunji, O. Understanding the landscape of overruns in transport infrastructure projects. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2015, 42, 490–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Love, P.; Smith, J.; Regan, M. Comparative procurement methodology analysis in Australia: A new approach. In Proceedings of the W092-Special Track 18th CIB World Building Congress, Salford, UK, 10–13 May 2010; p. 37. [Google Scholar]
- Egan, J. Rethinking Construction, Construction Task Force Report for Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; HMSO: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Palaneeswaran, E.; Kumaraswamy, M.M. An integrated decision support system for dealing with time extension entitlements. Autom. Constr. 2008, 17, 425–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radzi, A.; Rahman, R.; Doh, S.; Esa, M. Construction readiness parameters for highway projects. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2020; p. 012029. [Google Scholar]
- Umar, T.; Egbu, C. Heat stress, a hidden cause of accidents in construction. In Municipal Engineer; Institution of Civil Engineers: London, UK, 2020; pp. 49–60. [Google Scholar]
- Alleman, D.; Antoine, A.L.; Stanford, M.S.; Molenaar, K.R. Project Delivery Methods’ Change-Order Types and Magnitudes Experienced in Highway Construction. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr. 2020, 12, 04520006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fathi, M.; Shrestha, P.P.; Shakya, B. Change Orders and Schedule Performance of Design-Build Infrastructure Projects: Comparison between Highway and Water and Wastewater Projects. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr. 2020, 12, 04519043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Husein, A.A.; Majdi, A. Assessment of risk management and evaluate the level of risk in construction project: Case Study. Technium 2020, 2, 66–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Imbert, C.; Papp, J. Short-term Migration, Rural Public Works, and Urban Labor Markets: Evidence from India. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 2020, 18, 927–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bajjou, M.S.; Chafi, A. Identifying and Managing Critical Waste Factors for Lean Construction Projects. Eng. Manag. J. 2020, 32, 2–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahman, R.; Radzi, A.; Saad, M.; Doh, S. Factors affecting the success of highway construction projects: The case of Malaysia. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2020; p. 012030. [Google Scholar]
- Edison, J.; Singla, H.K. Development of a scale for factors causing delays in infrastructure projects in India. Constr. Econ. Build. 2020, 20, 36–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bendi, D.; Rana, M.Q.; Arif, M.; Goulding, J.S.; Kaushik, A.K. Understanding off-site readiness in Indian construction organisations. Constr. Innov. 2021, 21, 106–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kumar, D.; Rahman, Z.; Chan, F.T. A fuzzy AHP and fuzzy multi-objective linear programming model for order allocation in a sustainable supply chain: A case study. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2017, 30, 535–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Govindan, K.; Rajendran, S.; Sarkis, J.; Murugesan, P. Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 98, 66–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kotula, M.; Ho, W.; Dey, P.K.; Lee, C.K.M. Strategic sourcing supplier selection misalignment with critical success factors: Findings from multiple case studies in Germany and the United Kingdom. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 166, 238–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Davis, P.; Love, P.E.D.; Baccarini, D. Building Procurement Methods; Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation: Brisbane, Australia, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Hartmann, A.; Caerteling, J. Subcontractor procurement in construction: The interplay of price and trust. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2010, 15, 354–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoezen, M.; Voordijk, H.; Dewulf, G. Contracting dynamics in the competitive dialogue procedure. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2012, 2, 6–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laan, A.; Voordijk, H.; Dewulf, G. Reducing opportunistic behaviour through a project alliance. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2011, 4, 660–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bankvall, L.; Bygballe, L.E.; Dubois, A.; Jahre, M. Interdependence in supply chains and projects in construction. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2010, 15, 385–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baiden, B.K.; Price, A.D.; Dainty, A.R. The extent of team integration within construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2006, 24, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dainty, A.; Leiringer, R.; Fernie, S.; Harty, C. BIM and the small construction firm: A critical perspective. Build. Res. Inf. 2017, 45, 696–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Briscoe, G.; Dainty, A. Construction supply chain integration: An elusive goal? Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2005, 10, 319–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis; Pearson Education Limited: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Z.; Hu, J.; Shen, L. Green Procurement Management in Building Industry: An Alternative Environmental Strategy. In Proceedings of the 20th International Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 1217–1228. [Google Scholar]
- Zaremba, B.W.; Bode, C.; Wagner, S.M. New Venture Partnering Capability: An Empirical Investigation into How Buying Firms Effectively Leverage the Potential of Innovative New Ventures. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2017, 53, 41–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, M.; Minner, S. Review of Multi-Supplier Inventory Models in Supply Chain Management: An Update. 2017. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318019755_Review_of_Multi-Supplier_Inventory_Models_in_Supply_Chain_Management_An_Update (accessed on 4 May 2022).
- Xu, G.; Markowitz, H.; Wang, M.; Guerard, J.B. Constructing Mean Variance Efficient Frontiers Using Foreign Large Blend Mutual Funds. In Portfolio Construction, Measurement, and Efficiency; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 315–329. [Google Scholar]
- Afolabi, A.; Oyeyipo, O.; Ojelabi, R.A.; Tunji-Olayeni, P. Balancing the female identity in the construction industry. J. Constr. Dev. Ctries. 2019, 24, 83–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hampton, G.; Baldwin, A.N.; Holt, G. Project delays and cost: Stakeholder perceptions of traditional v. PPP procurement. J. Financ. Manag. Prop. Constr. 2012, 17, 73–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deep, S.; Bhoola, V.; Verma, S.; Ranasinghe, U. Identifying the risk factors in real estate construction projects: An analytical study to propose a control structure for decision-making. J. Financ. Manag. Prop. Constr. 2021; ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edwards, D.J.; Owusu-Manu, D.G.; Baiden, B.; Badu, E.; Love, P.E. Financial distress and highway infrastructure delays. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2017, 15, 118–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orangi, A.; Palaneeswaran, E.; Wilson, J. Exploring Delays in Victoria-Based Astralian Pipeline Projects. Procedia Eng. 2011, 14, 874–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Le-Hoai, L.; Lee, Y.D.; Lee, J.Y. Delay and Cost Overruns in Vietnam Large Construction Projects: A Comparison with Other Selected Countries. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2008, 12, 367–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Das, P. Reduction in delay in procurement of materials using Six Sigma philosophy. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2007, 16, 645–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deep, S.; Bhoola, V.; Vidhani, J.; Hampannaver, P.R. Evaluating the impact of constraints on project success: Empirical study of highway projects. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2022; ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deep, S.; Gajendran, T.; Jefferies, M. Factors Influencing Power and Dependence for Collaboration among Construction Project Participants. J. Leg. Aff. Disput. Resolut. Eng. Constr. 2020, 12, 06520001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kannan, D. Role of multiple stakeholders and the critical success factor theory for the sustainable supplier selection process. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2017, 195, 391–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- KPMG. Roads and Highways Sector—Current Trends and Future Road Map; Confederation of Indian Industry: New Delhi, India, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Tanko, B.L.; Abdullah, F.; Ramly, Z.M. Stakeholders Assessment of Constraints to Project Delivery in the Nigerian Construction Industry. Int. J. Built Environ. Sustain. 2017, 4, 56–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osei-Kyei, R.; Chan, A.P.C. Perceptions of stakeholders on the critical success factors for operational management of public-private partnership projects. Facilities 2017, 35, 21–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noorzai, E. Performance Analysis of Alternative Contracting Methods for Highway Construction Projects: Case Study for Iran. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2020, 26, 04020003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deep, S.; Gajendran, T.; Jefferies, M. A systematic review of ‘enablers of collaboration’ among the participants in construction projects. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2021, 21, 919–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molwus, J.J.; Erdogan, B.; Ogunlana, S. Using structural equation modelling (SEM) to understand the relationships among critical success factors (CSFs) for stakeholder management in construction. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2017, 24, 426–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mok, K.Y.; Shen, G.Q.; Yang, R.J.; Li, C.Z. Investigating key challenges in major public engineering projects by a network-theory based analysis of stakeholder concerns: A case study. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 78–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali Kazmi, S. Impact of Natural, Man-Made Risks and Stakeholders Relationship on Effectiveness of Supply Chain Management in Developing Countries. KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. 2017. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Impact-of-Natural%2C-Man-made-Risks-and-Stakeholders-Kazmi/14548e41f4fc8f458c4dd88504841c2155fb907b (accessed on 4 May 2022).
- Indian Infrastructure. Dispute Resolution: Weighing the Need For a Construction Law in India. 2019. Available online: https://indianinfrastructure.com/2019/05/03/dispute-resolution/ (accessed on 4 May 2022).
- Mangu, S.; Annamalai, T.R.; Deep, A. Comparison of toll and annuity PPPs: A case study of highway projects in India. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2021, 11, 103–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sullivan, J.; El Asmar, M.; Chalhoub, J.; Obeid, H. Two Decades of Performance Comparisons for Design-Build, Construction Manager at Risk, and Design-Bid-Build: Quantitative Analysis of the State of Knowledge on Project Cost, Schedule, and Quality. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2017, 143, 04017009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ou-Yang, C.; Chen, W.L. Applying a risk assessment approach for cost analysis and decision-making: A case study for a basic design engineering project. J. Chin. Inst. Eng. 2017, 40, 378–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kerkhove, L.P.; Vanhoucke, M. A parallel multi-objective scatter search for optimising incentive contract design in projects. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2017, 261, 1066–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hadidi, L.; Assaf, S.; Aluwfi, K.; Akrawi, H. The effect of ISO 9001 implementation on the customer satisfaction of the engineering design services. Int. J. Build. Pathol. 2017, 35, 176–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sariola, R.; Martinsuo, M. Enhancing the supplier’s non-contractual project relationships with designers. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 923–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qu, X.B.; Meng, Q.; Yuanita, V.; Wong, Y.H. Design and implementation of a quantitative risk assessment software tool for Singapore road tunnels. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 13827–13834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meduri, S.S.; Annamalai, T.R. Unit Costs of Public and PPP Road Projects: Evidence from India. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sinha, A.K.; Jha, K.N. Financing constraints of public–private partnership projects in India. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2021, 28, 246–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yap, J.B.H.; Abdul-Rahman, H.; Chen, W. Collaborative model: Managing design changes with reusable project experiences through project learning and effective communication. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1253–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dang, C.N.; Long, L.H. Critical success factors for implementation process of design-build projects in Vietnam. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2016, 14, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ernzen, J.J.; Schexnayder, C. One company’s experience with design/build: Labor cost risk and profit potential. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2000, 126, 10–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohsini, R.; Davidson, C.H. Building procurement—Key to improved performance: Owner’s procurement decisions have very real effect on the performance of the design team as it carries out various stages of building design and construction process. Build. Res. Inf. 1991, 19, 106–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dixit, S. Study of factors affecting the performance of construction projects in AEC industry. Organ. Technol. Manag. Constr. 2020, 12, 2275–2282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dixit, S. Impact of management practices on construction productivity in Indian building construction projects: An empirical study. Organ. Technol. Manag. Constr. 2021, 13, 2383–2390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dixit, S. Analysing the Impact of Productivity in Indian Transport Infra Projects. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2022, 1218, 12059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dixit, S.; Arora, R.; Kumar, K.; Bansal, S.; Vatin, N.; Araszkiewicz, K.; Epifantsev, K. Replacing E-waste with coarse aggregate in architectural engineering and construction industry. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 56, 2353–2358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dixit, S.; Mandal, S.N.; Thanikal, J.V.; Saurabh, K. Evolution of studies in construction productivity: A systematic literature review (2006–2017). Ain Shams Eng. J. 2019, 10, 555–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dixit, S.; Sharma, K. An Empirical Study of Major Factors Affecting Productivity of Construction Projects. In Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering; Springer: Singapore, 2020; Volume 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dixit, S.; Sharma, K.; Singh, S. Identifying and Analysing Key Factors Associated with Risks in Construction Projects. In Emerging Trends in Civil Engineering; Babu, K.G., Rao, H.S., Amarnath, Y., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 25–32. [Google Scholar]
- Dixit, S.; Singh, P. Investigating the disposal of E-Waste as in architectural engineering and construction industry. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 56, 1891–1895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dixit, S.; Stefańska, A. Digitisation of contemporary fabrication processes in the AEC sector. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 56, 1882–1885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dixit, S.; Stefańska, A.; Musiuk, A. Architectural form finding in arboreal supporting structure optimisation. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2021, 12, 2321–2329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dixit, S.; Stefańska, A.; Musiuk, A.; Singh, P. Study of enabling factors affecting the adoption of ICT in the Indian built environment sector. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2021, 12, 2313–2319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dixit, S.; Stefańska, A.; Singh, P. Manufacturing technology in terms of digital fabrication of contemporary biomimetic structures. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2021, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Frequency | Percent | ||
---|---|---|---|
Years of working experience in Highway projects | 5–10 years | 147 | 79 |
11–15 years | 11 | 5.5 | |
16–20 years | 14 | 7.0 | |
More than 20 years | 13 | 6.5 | |
Procurement Method Used | Design Build | 46 | 23.0 |
Engineering Procure and Construct (EPC) | 55 | 27.5 | |
BOT and BOOT | 9 | 4.5 | |
Public Private Partnerships | 38 | 19.0 | |
Managing Contractor (ECI) | 14 | 7.0 | |
Traditional Method | 35 | 17.5 | |
Design Build | 46 | 23.0 |
Risk Factor Description | Component | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||
1 | Encroachment in right of way | 0.957 | −0.057 | 0.167 | 0.230 |
2 | Difficulty in land acquisition | 0.942 | 0.220 | −0.129 | −0.219 |
3 | Disputes between workers | 0.881 | −0.055 | 0.466 | 0.058 |
4 | Delay from clients | 0.832 | 0.445 | 0.192 | 0.269 |
5 | Service for damaged equipments | 0.813 | 0.233 | 0.421 | 0.327 |
6 | Knowledge on equipments | 0.697 | 0.458 | 0.392 | 0.389 |
7 | Impact of weather condition on project | 0.686 | 0.647 | −0.107 | −0.314 |
8 | Chances of sub-contractor walk out | 0.676 | 0.437 | 0.545 | 0.236 |
9 | Delay in work execution of sub-contractor | −0.031 | 0.985 | −0.125 | 0.111 |
10 | Loophole in site safety leading to accidents and injuries | 0.170 | 0.945 | −0.144 | 0.239 |
11 | Changing sequences in construction activity | 0.450 | 0.783 | 0.022 | 0.429 |
12 | Unprecedented price in raw materials | −0.355 | −.746 | −0.557 | −0.084 |
13 | Frequent modification from Client side | 0.174 | 0.097 | 0.980 | 0.030 |
14 | Local bodies compelling to use their resources | 0.268 | −0.205 | 0.879 | 0.336 |
15 | Pressure from any political party | 0.041 | −0.310 | 0.800 | 0.511 |
16 | Inadequate and incomplete design | −0.045 | 0.334 | 0.317 | 0.887 |
17 | Change in quantities of work | 0.451 | 0.316 | 0.250 | 0.796 |
% of Variance | 35.382 | 26.584 | 22.480 | 15.554 | |
Cumulative % | 35.382 | 61.966 | 84.446 | 100.00 | |
Total | 6.015 | 4.519 | 3.822 | 2.644 |
Factor’s Description | Component | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||
1 | Encroachment in right of way | 0.957 | |||
2 | Difficulty in land acquisition | 0.942 | |||
3 | Disputes between labors | 0.881 | |||
4 | Delay from clients | 0.832 | |||
5 | Service for damaged equipment | 0.813 | |||
6 | Knowledge of equipment | 0.697 | |||
7 | Impact of weather condition on project | 0.686 | |||
8 | Chances of sub-contractor walk out | 0.676 | |||
9 | Delay in work execution of sub-contractor | 0.985 | |||
10 | Loophole in site safety leading to accidents and injuries | 0.945 | |||
11 | Changing sequences in construction activity | 0.783 | |||
12 | Unprecedented price in raw materials | −0.746 | |||
13 | Frequent modification from Client side | 0.980 | |||
14 | Local bodies compelling to use their resources | 0.879 | |||
15 | Pressure from any political party | 0.800 | |||
16 | Inadequate and incomplete design | 0.887 | |||
17 | Change in quantities of work | 0.796 |
DC | UPRM | FMCS | DLA | IID | ERW | DBL | CSCA | CQW | KE | SDE | IWCP | PPP | LBCR | CSW | DWEC | RP | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Delay from clients | DC | 1.000 | ||||||||||||||||
Unprecedented price of raw materials | UPRM | −0.758 | 1.000 | |||||||||||||||
Frequent modification from Client side | FMCS | 0.384 | −0.682 | 1.000 | ||||||||||||||
Difficulty in land acquisition | DLA | 0.798 | −0.409 | 0.052 | 1.000 | |||||||||||||
Inadequate and incomplete design | IID | 0.410 | −0.485 | 0.361 | −0.203 | 1.000 | ||||||||||||
Encroachment in right of way | ERW | 0.865 | −0.410 | 0.332 | 0.817 | 0.195 | 1.000 | |||||||||||
Disputes between labours | DBL | 0.814 | −0.537 | 0.606 | 0.745 | 0.141 | 0.938 | 1.000 | ||||||||||
Changing sequences in construction activity | CSCA | 0.842 | −0.792 | 0.188 | 0.499 | 0.629 | 0.488 | 0.389 | 1.000 | |||||||||
Change in quantities of work | CQW | 0.778 | −0.602 | 0.377 | 0.288 | 0.870 | 0.639 | 0.543 | 0.797 | 1.000 | ||||||||
Knowledge on equipments | KE | 0.964 | −0.840 | 0.561 | 0.622 | 0.591 | 0.796 | 0.794 | 0.847 | 0.867 | 1.000 | |||||||
Service for damaged equipments | SDE | 0.949 | −0.725 | 0.586 | 0.691 | 0.464 | 0.911 | 0.919 | 0.698 | 0.806 | 0.966 | 1.000 | ||||||
Impact of weather condition on project | IWCP | 0.755 | −0.641 | 0.068 | 0.871 | −0.127 | 0.530 | 0.501 | 0.678 | 0.237 | 0.611 | 0.562 | 1.000 | |||||
Pressure from any political party | PPP | 0.188 | −0.273 | 0.777 | −0.245 | 0.601 | 0.309 | 0.456 | 0.013 | 0.528 | 0.399 | 0.466 | −0.418 | 1.000 | ||||
Local bodies compelling to use their resources | LBCR | 0.391 | −0.461 | 0.898 | 0.020 | 0.496 | 0.493 | 0.677 | 0.124 | 0.543 | 0.568 | 0.650 | −0.148 | 0.950 | 1.000 | |||
Chances of sub-contractor walk out | CSW | 0.925 | −0.889 | 0.701 | 0.611 | 0.497 | 0.767 | 0.839 | 0.759 | 0.767 | 0.976 | 0.958 | 0.614 | 0.450 | 0.650 | 1.000 | ||
Delay in work execution of sub-contractor | DWEC | 0.418 | −0.663 | −0.030 | 0.180 | 0.389 | −0.082 | −0.134 | 0.802 | 0.354 | 0.423 | 0.188 | 0.595 | −0.351 | −0.284 | 0.367 | 1.000 | |
Revision of price | RP | 0.599 | −0.705 | −0.013 | 0.335 | 0.474 | 0.140 | 0.045 | 0.916 | 0.529 | 0.588 | 0.376 | 0.669 | −0.279 | −0.195 | 0.505 | 0.971 | 1.000 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Deep, S.; Banerjee, S.; Dixit, S.; Vatin, N.I. Critical Factors Influencing the Performance of Highway Projects: An Empirical Evaluation. Buildings 2022, 12, 849. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12060849
Deep S, Banerjee S, Dixit S, Vatin NI. Critical Factors Influencing the Performance of Highway Projects: An Empirical Evaluation. Buildings. 2022; 12(6):849. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12060849
Chicago/Turabian StyleDeep, Shumank, Shankar Banerjee, Saurav Dixit, and Nikolai Ivanovich Vatin. 2022. "Critical Factors Influencing the Performance of Highway Projects: An Empirical Evaluation" Buildings 12, no. 6: 849. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12060849
APA StyleDeep, S., Banerjee, S., Dixit, S., & Vatin, N. I. (2022). Critical Factors Influencing the Performance of Highway Projects: An Empirical Evaluation. Buildings, 12(6), 849. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12060849