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

net/publication/264834873

Productivity determinants in Oman construction industry

Article  in  International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management · January 2013

DOI: 10.1504/IJPQM.2013.056736

CITATIONS READS

7 990

2 authors, including:

Mohammad Miftaur Rahman Khan Khadem

Sultan Qaboos University
21 PUBLICATIONS   47 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Miftaur Rahman Khan Khadem on 22 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

426 Int. J. Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2013

Productivity determinants in Oman construction

industry

Md. Anisul Islam*

Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering,
Sultan Qaboos University,
P.O. Box 33, Al-Khoud 123, Muscat, Oman
E-mail: m091852@squ.edu.om
and
Department of Industrial and Production Engineering,
Shah Jalal University of Science and Technology,
Sylhet-3114, Bangladesh
E-mail: anis134ipe@yahoo.com
E-mail: anis-ipe@sust.edu
*Corresponding author

Mohammad Miftaur Rahman Khan Khadem

Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering,
Sultan Qaboos University,
P.O. Box 33, Al-Khoud 123, Muscat, Oman
E-mail: khadem@squ.edu.om

Abstract: Spectacular socio-economic development has taken place all around

Oman during the last four decades. As a consequence, thriving construction
industries are apparent everywhere in the country and not surprisingly, they are
going through some productivity problems. Therefore, in light of improving
productivity, this paper focuses on exploring the major determinants of
productivity, their co-relationship, and the problem categories responsible for
construction delay in the context of Oman construction industry. A
semi-structured questionnaire approach is chosen as a method of survey from
the parties involved in construction industry, such as, owners, consultants,
contractors, and foremen/workers. Twenty five major factors of productivity,
which are further grouped into ten critical variables by principle components
analysis, are identified to be important in this study. Lack of professionalism,
fairness in financial transactions, incompetent supervisors, lack of materials,
and incomplete drawing are found as top five factors of productivity. In
addition, management, people, collaboration, health and safety, logistics,
commitment, operational activity, authority, quality, and financial matters are
reported as critical variables of productivity. Owners and consultants are
determined as top problem categories for construction delay. The comparisons
of top five productivity factors found in this study to several other countries’
productivity factors are also shown. Overall, this study is expected to have
substantial implication for policy makers and researchers in the area of
construction productivity in Oman.

Copyright © 2013 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Productivity determinants in Oman construction industry 427

Keywords: productivity determinants; principle components analysis;

construction industry; Oman.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Islam, M.A. and

Khadem, M.M.R.K. (2013) ‘Productivity determinants in Oman construction
industry’, Int. J. Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 12, No. 4,
pp.426–448.

Biographical notes: Md. Anisul Islam is an Assistant Professor in the

Department of Industrial and Production Engineering at Shah Jalal University
of Science and Technology, Sylhet, Bangladesh. Currently, he is working as a
Research Assistant in the Department of Mechanical and Industrial
Engineering; and Operations Management and Business Statistics at Sultan
Qaboos University, Oman. His research interests are in productivity
improvement techniques, operations management, and management science.
He has published papers in many journals such as International Journal of
Fashion Design, Technology and Education, International Journal of Industrial
and System Engineering, Journal of Engineering and Technology, and many at
international conferences.

Mohammad Miftaur Rahman Khan Khadem is an Assistant Professor in the

Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering at Sultan Qaboos
University, Muscat, Oman. He received his BS in Mechanical Engineering
from Bangladesh Institute of Technology, Khulna, Bangladesh; MS in
Mechanical Engineering from the University of South Alabama, USA; and PhD
in Industrial Engineering from the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, USA.
His research interests include lean manufacturing, human factors, healthcare
system, manufacturing systems modelling, simulation and optimisation,
production control, artificial intelligence and e-manufacturing. He is a member
of IIE, INFORMS and SME. He has served as a guest editor in International
Journal of Industrial and System Engineering; and International Journal of
Industrial Engineering.

1 Introduction

Productivity means almost everything in any business (Krugman, 1997) and a long-term
practice of productivity concepts constitutes less cost, less time, and higher quality of
product/service that ultimately results in greater economic growth in business
organisation (Odhigu et al., 2012). In addition, productivity indices are reckoned as
indicators of business performance for stakeholders (Yu and Lee, 2002). As
consequences, because of its largest size and its assistance to all other industries to some
extent, construction productivity contributes significantly to the gross national product
(GNP) both in industrialised and semi-industrialised countries (Chia, 2012; Navon,
2005). Moreover, construction productivity is considered as a vital issue in national and
international competitiveness, increasing living status, and also in achievement of societal
goal in countries (Ghoddousi and Hosseini, 2012; Chia et al., 2012).
428 M.A. Islam and M.M.R.K. Khadem

But the ever-changing multidisciplinary (Jaffar et al., 2011) and instinct desegregated
behaviours (Hohns, 1979) of construction industries make productivity principles
complex. As a result, the construction industry has been facing higher level of
productivity concerns for a long time that necessitate continuous investigation of the
productivity variables or factors. Moreover, lack of systematic investigation impedes the
pursuit of benefits from established productivity concepts in this industry, while other
industries, for example manufacturing industries (Mojahed and Aghazadeh, 2008), and
service industries such as bank (Sufian, 2010) hold the major parts of gain. Thus,
investigating the productivity factors in the purpose of finding the current and future
problems in construction industry is ever essential, especially in unfocused countries
(Shehata and El-Gohary, 2011; Goodrum et al., 2009).
As the common Asian saying, stated by Long et al. (2004), “a problem well defined is
a problem half solved”, and it is always better to be proactive in problem analysis in
which potential problems for the future can be well anticipated. In particular, construction
productivity can be characterised by several levels (e.g., industry, firm, project, and
activity level) and their collaborations from different upstream and downstream industries
(Huang et al., 2009; Dzeng and Wu, 2012). Productivity in construction industry is
studied in literature by three most common indices such as single factor-labour
productivity index, multi factor production index, and capital productivity index
(Li and Liu, 2012; Chia et al., 2012; Allan et al., 2010; Ruddock and Ruddock, 2011;
O’Brien and Associates, Inc., 2008); or by productivity measurement methods such as
Hicks-Moorsteen index (Arora and Arora, 2012), Malmquist productivity index (Sufian,
2012; Li and Song, 2012; Li and Liu, 2010), data envelopment analysis (Ray and Ray,
2012; Xue et al.,2008); or by improvement tools such as Six Sigma (Desai, 2012), cluster
concepts (Phusavat et al., 2012). Despite of various areas of improvement, it is
impossible to bring productivity development in construction industries except the well
identified productivity factors, both present and future, affect it (Jaaskelainen, 2010;
Mojahed and Aghazadeh, 2008). Some of these factors have positive effect and some
have negative effect on overall productivity. The factors have negative effect on
productivity, are considered as problem categories for construction industry.
In general, every kind of development needs some physical infrastructure, which is an
ultimate work for construction industry that in turn significantly influence on
socio-economic development of countries (Bielsa and Duarte, 2011). Similar scenario
prevails in the Sultanate of Oman (hereafter referred as Oman) with dramatic
socio-economic progress presently where construction industry contributed 3% to the
GDP in 2004 and it is expected to raise 10% by 2020 (Oman Chamber of Commerce and
Industry, 2005). Most of the construction farms are belong to small and medium
industries and they have been growing by 34.7% in 2007 as a result of large scale public
and private investment in various infrastructure developments, such as industries, tourism
and commercial property projects, etc. (PwC, 2012). Moreover, under the long term
economic plan called ‘vision 2020’, currently Oman Government is spending 23% more
money in 2012 in compare to 2011 fiscal year in construction industry during the eighth
five-year development plan (2011–2015) (The Consulate General of the Sultanate of
Oman-Australia, 2012). But then, no systematic investigation has been done so far on
productivity area in the construction industry in Oman, although several risk factors are
identified in the construction industry in Oman (Ballal et al., 2007). Hence, it is urgently
needed that factors of productivity are to be well explored that make practitioners and
 Productivity determinants in Oman construction industry 429

researchers’ know-how on the present and future problems and prospects of construction
industry in Oman.
This research focuses on identifying:
1 the major productivity determinants and their co-relationship
2 the problem categories those are responsible for construction delay in Oman
construction industry.

2 Literature review

Productivity is explained as a ratio of a measure of output to a measure of certain or all of

the inputs used to produce this output (Grimes, 2007). In construction industry, inputs
include the resources associated with manpower, machinery, equipment, materials and
transportation; outputs include the physical element that associated with the improvement
of construction project (Gouett et al., 2011; Dzeng and Wu, 2012). These outputs and the
compositions of input mix in construction industries change over time, and it is difficult
to establish a benchmark of these relations (Chia, 2012). In addition, inputs and outputs
can be characterised by tangible and intangible factors and in some construction
industries, intangible factors are important twice than tangible (Haskel et al., 2011). As a
result, it is greatly suggested to study the common factors affecting productivity in the
purpose of improving construction productivity (Ghoddousi and Hosseini, 2012). These
factors of construction productivity include both positive factors and negative factors.
Negative factors affect productivity adversely by increasing non-productive time and
cost. Thus, emphasising on positive factors that have progressive affect, and checking
and amending negative factors that have adverse effect on productivity, will eventually
improve construction productivity. All known factors affecting productivity positively or
negatively, are useful for productivity forecasting in construction industries (Lema,
1995).
Earlier studies showed that huge scope of study remains open in construction
productivity both in developed and developing countries (Ofori, 2006; Makulsawatudom
et al., 2004). It is appeared in literature that productivity in construction industries have
been studied in various research works through common factors affecting productivity
(Lam and Wong, 2011; Alinaitwe et al., 2007; Mojahed and Aghazadeh, 2008; Enshassi
et al., 2009; Long et al., 2004; Makulsawatudom et al., 2004); or by a particular factor of
productivity such as, craftsmen (Jarkas and Radosavljevic, 2012; Kaming et al., 1997),
sub-contractors (Ng and Tang, 2010), workers (Li and Liu, 2012; James et al., 2012;
Jarkas and Bitar, 2012; Moselhi and Khan, 2012; Kazaz and Ulubeyli, 2007; Zakeri et al.,
1997; Abdel-Razek et al., 2007); or by entire network of the industry, i.e., supply chain
(Setijono, 2010; Dey et al., 2008), even in some cases through the causes of construction
delay (Doloi et al., 2011; Faridi and El-Sayegh, 2006).
Numerous productivity factors have been found out by the previous research works.
For examples, Jarkas et al. (2012) stated that skill of labour, shortage of materials, labour
supervision, shortage of experienced labour, communication between site management
and labour force, lack of construction managers’ leadership, high temperature weather,
delays in ‘responding to request for information’, lack of providing labour with
transportation, and proportion of work subcontracted, were the top ten productivity
factors in Qatar construction industry. Al-Ghamdi et al. (2011) found that various
430 M.A. Islam and M.M.R.K. Khadem

corporate management factors, such as managers in dissimilar cultural contexts, at

different times, and operating in different types of business environment, as poor
productivity factors in private sector firms across the Saudi Arabia. Ghoddousi and
Hosseini (2012) explained top seven factors affecting Iran construction projects such as
materials/tools, construction technology and method, planning, supervision system,
reworks, weather, and jobsite condition. Dai et al. (2009) studied US construction
industry, stated that construction equipment, materials, tools and consumables,
engineering drawing management, direction and coordination, project management,
training, craft worker qualification, superintendent competency, and foreman
competency, in a descending order of their negative impact on construction productivity.
In Italy, Pellegrino et al. (2012) summarised ten factors influencing construction
productivity such as, experience and skill of construction crew, size of the construction
crew, site management, design deficiencies or mistakes, delivery delay – equipment
deficiencies, storage area, planning/time scheduling, quality acceptance/control, weather
conditions, work repetition. Rivas et al. (2011) in Chilean construction industry found
that materials, tools, rework, equipment, truck availability, and the workers’ motivational
dynamics were the factors affecting construction productivity, Salary expectations of
workers and midlevel employees were also found to be the most important reason for
turnover. Long et al. (2004) identified that inaccurate time estimation, slow site
clearance, and excessive change order were the top three productivity factors in Vietnam.
He had identified a total of 20 factors; those were grouped further into five factors by
principle components analysis. In case of Gaza strip, major productivity factors were
escalation of material prices, differentiation of currency prices, and cash flow of project
according to contractors opinion (Enshassi et al., 2009), whereas the lack of materials,
incomplete drawing, and incompetent supervisors were the significant factors in
construction industries in Thailand (Makulsawatudom et al., 2004). In addition, conflict,
poor workmanship, and incompetence of contractors were the causes of poor productivity
in South African construction industries (Hanson, 2006). Moreover, education of owners,
skill of workers and past productivity records were determined as crucial factors of
firm-level productivity in Nigeria (Adebowale and Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, 2012).
Experiencing delay is a common concern of any construction industry, as it increases
costs that ultimately aggregate poor productivity in construction industry (El-Maghraby
et al., 2011). Thus, in the sense of an elaborate investigation of the industry, finding the
parties responsible for productivity delay are important. Delay in material delivery by
vendors, non-availability of drawing/design on time, and financial constraints of
contractors were the causes of delay in Indian construction industries (Doloi et al., 2011).
In Kuwait construction industry, it was found that change orders, financial constraints,
owner’s lack of experience, materials, weather, labour, contractor, and combination,
were the most delay factor (Koushki et al., 2005). In Saudi Arabian construction
industry, it was observed that shortage of manpower – labour related, contractor
experience-contractor related, shortage of material – material related, lack of finance to
complete the work – owner related, short original contract duration – contract
relationship related, and late in reviewing and approving design – consultant related,
factors were the causes of construction delay (Al-Kharashi and Skitmore, 2009). A
research work in Thailand construction industry studied by Toor and Ogunlana (2008),
presented that factors related to designers, contractors and consultants were rated among
the top problems. Problems such as lack of resources, poor contractor management,
shortage of labour, design delays, planning and scheduling deficiencies, changed orders
 Productivity determinants in Oman construction industry 431

and contractors’ financial difficulties were also stressed in this study. In the USA, design
change, inaccurate evaluation of projects time, complexity of works, risk and uncertainty
associated with projects, non-performance of subcontractors and nominated suppliers,
lack of proper training and experiencing of PM, were found as top delay factors in
construction industry (Olawale and Sun, 2010). In UAE, preparation and approval of
drawings, inadequate early planning of the project and slowness of the owner’s
decision-making process were the causes of construction delay (Faridi and El-Sayegh,
2006). Preparation and approval of drawings, unsuitable leadership style of
construction/project manager and preparation and approval of drawings delayed
construction works in Lebanon (Mezher and Tawil, 1998). In Jordan, the parties such as
client, contractor and labour and equipment were the most responsible for construction
delay (Odeh and Battaineh, 2002); however, design changes by the owner, poor labour
productivity and inadequate planning of contractor were identified as causes of
construction delay in Indonesia (Kaming et al., 1997). A similar study by Long et al.
(2004) found that consultant, contractor, coordinator were the most occurred problem
categories in Vietnamese construction projects. In Malaysia, contractor, labour, and
equipment and materials were prime problem categories for construction delay
(Sambasivan and Soon, 2007).
Thus, productivity concepts in construction industry can be carried out in different
aspects and each aspect has its own significance on productivity. Moreover, factors have
co-relationship in each aspect and it is important to understand their co-relationship
(Doloi et al., 2011).

3 Methodology

3.1 Survey questionnaire

In this research work, an effective semi-structured questionnaire-based survey (Alinaitwe
et al., 2007) has been adopted. A primary questionnaire has been organised first from the
standard literature in this area. Since Omani construction industries have not been
investigated before, related literature published based on neighbour countries have been
focused more in primary questionnaires. The questionnaire, is written in English, is
categorised into two parts. The first part is aimed to prime determinants of productivity
and second part is intended to construction delay factors. Initially, 30 factors of
productivity and six categories of delay have been used for a pilot test. An expert panel,
comprising two professionals and one senior academician, is maintained in this pilot
study to make questionnaires suitable in present context. Based on their comments, a
final draft of questionnaire having total of 25 factors of productivity, seven factors of
delay has been adopted for final survey in this study.
Each respondent is requested to rate the factors on a five-point Likert scales (such as,
1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = average, 4 = high, and 5 = very high). Respondents in this
study have been reached by various methods such as, e-mail, telephone, by colleagues,
and directly, to deliver and receive the feedback. However, direct (by hand) method is
chosen preferably to motivate the respondents (Long et al., 2004). Some respondents are
requested to be interviewed at their suitable time. Heterogeneity in this survey is assured
by selecting a group of mixed respondents, which is very essential in finding various
factors in construction industries (Sambasivan and Soon, 2007).
432 M.A. Islam and M.M.R.K. Khadem

3.2 Respondents characteristic

To ensure the heterogeneity in this study, a total of 296 respondents are randomly
selected from different parties, such as owners, consultants/designers, contractors,
foremen, and experienced workers (at least five years), involved in construction
industries in Oman. Of them 138 respondents are found valid for analysis that represents
overall response rate is 46.6%. Some respondents are afraid to give the rank as most of
the parties are expatriates, which is also the general scenario in construction industries in
Oman. Seven respondents from owner, foreman, and worker level are not considered in
the analysis due to ill ranking, perhaps because of their linguistic deficiency. It shows the
lacking of research culture presently in Omani construction industries. Table 1 indicates a
brief demography of respondents.
Table 1 A brief demography of respondents

Parties Distributed Responses received Response rate Proportion

Owner 32 11 34.4% 7.9%
Consultant/designer 103 59 57.3% 42.7%
Contractor/subcontractor 76 40 52.6% 28.9%
Foreman 61 18 29.5% 29.5%
Worker 24 10 41.6% 7.3%
Total 296 138 46.6% 100%

The highest proportion (57.3%) of respondents in this study is found from

consultant/designer professionals, which is followed by contractor/subcontractor (52.6%).
Next highest proportion (41.66%) from workers, although number of worker respondents
are only ten. The other parties are occupied 34.37% of owner and 29.50% from foremen.
Judgement from foremen and workers could be considered as a single group of
respondents in this study, as because it is very frequent that experienced workers become
foremen in small and medium construction industry in Oman.

3.3 How is the analysis performed?

After collecting the information (retrieved data from the success respondents), some
descriptive statistics such as mean, standard deviation, relative importance index (RII)
and factor analysis, principle components analysis have been utilised for this analysis. RII
is preferred mostly in ranking the attributes, as mean and standard deviation is not an
appropriate choice in ranking due to inability to show any relationship between the
attributes (Faridi and El-Sayegh, 2006; Iyer and Jha, 2005). Thus, the factors are ranked
in descending order of RII. RII is calculated by following equation:
∑W
RII =
A∗ N
where
W the weight given to each factor by the respondents
A highest weight
N total number of respondents.
 Productivity determinants in Oman construction industry 433

Factors of productivity are grouped into different variables and it is essential to

understand the structure of inter-relationship among the factors within each variable.
Principal components analysis is used to obtain the optimal ways of combining factors
into a small number of variables and factor analysis is employed to get co-relationship
among the factors (Doloi, 2009; Long et al., 2004). The validity and reliability of
questionnaires (in terms of internal consistency) is tested by the Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) of
each variable (Teerajetgul et al., 2009). Although there is no acceptable limit of Cα, as it
can be extended by large number of variables (Zhang, 2005). Numerous statistical tests
such as Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO MSA) and Bartlett’s
test of sphericity are applied to test the adequacy of the collected data for factor analysis
(Field, 2005). The value of KMO MSA can be varied from 0 to 1. It is advisable to have
minimum value of KMO MSA is 0.5; value near to 1 is more reliable result by factor
analysis (Kaiser, 1974). Moreover, for the accurate factor analysis, the strength of the
data is measured by the communality of each factor used in factor analysis. The value 0.4
to 0.7 of communality has been recommended for any further analysis in principle
components analysis (Costello and Osborne, 2005).

4 Result calculation

4.1 Result 01: Ranking of productivity determinants by RII and mean

Ranking of productivity determinants represents the importance of the particular
determinants that influence production efficiency. A total of 25 determinants/factors are
ranked in descending order of RII and mean value of the determinants in this study (detail
shown in Table 2).
Table 2 Ranking of the determinants/factors

Factors RII Mean(SD) Rank

Lack of professionalism 0.891 4.45 (0.59) 1
Fairness in financial transactions 0.864 4.32 (0.54) 2
Incompetent supervisors 0.792 3.96 (0.75) 3
Shortage of materials 0.785 3.92 (1.06) 4
Incomplete drawing 0.781 3.90 (0.66) 5
Safety (accident) 0.729 3.64 (0.68) 6
Scheduled working overtime 0.716 3.58 (0.92) 7
Rework 0.711 3.56 (0.59) 8
Bureaucracy 0.710 3.55 (0.92) 9
Contractor’s financial difficulties 0.697 3.48 (0.97) 10
Changing of foremen 0.694 3.47 (1.01) 11
Poor communication 0.659 3.29 (0.91) 12
Inspection delay 0.658 3.29 (0.74) 13
Instruction time 0.648 3.24 (0.95) 14
Change orders 0.646 3.23 (0.85) 15
Shift/work timing 0.625 3.13 (0.84) 16
Poor site condition 0.623 3.11 (1.03) 17
434 M.A. Islam and M.M.R.K. Khadem

Table 2 Ranking of the determinants/factors (continued)

Factors RII Mean(SD) Rank

Low technology 0.613 3.06 (0.97) 18
Staff team morality 0.598 2.99 (0.83) 19
Interferences from other trade 0.591 2.95 (0.70) 20
Lack of responsibility 0.585 2.92 (0.92) 21
Work load 0.563 2.82 (0.93) 22
Lack of skilled manpower 0.561 2.80 (0.86) 23
Obtaining permission from local authority 0.548 2.74 (0.84) 24
Tool/equipment breakdown 0.502 2.51 (0.71) 25

Table 2 suggests that productivity in small and medium construction industries in Oman
has been affected mostly by ‘lack of professionalism’ of all parties involves in these
industries and less affected by ‘tool/equipment breakdown’, that indicates construction
industries in Oman are still labour oriented. The co-relationship among the factors is not
known from RIIs and means of the data.
Table 3 Communalities of the each factor

Factors Initial Extractions

Lack of professionalism 1.000 0.622
Fairness in financial transactions 1.000 0.689
Incompetent supervisors 1.000 0.662
Shortage of materials 1.000 0.737
Incomplete drawing 1.000 0.550
Safety (accident) 1.000 0.618
Scheduled working overtime 1.000 0.665
Rework 1.000 0.700
Bureaucracy 1.000 0.698
Contractor’s financial difficulties 1.000 0.643
Changing of foremen 1.000 0.735
Poor communication 1.000 0.703
Inspection delay 1.000 0.634
Instruction time 1.000 0.693
Change orders 1.000 0.777
Shift/work timing 1.000 0.722
Poor site condition 1.000 0.611
Low technology 1.000 0.619
Staff team morality 1.000 0.770
Interferences from other trade 1.000 0.672
Lack of responsibility 1.000 0.799
Work load 1.000 0.676
Lack of skilled manpower 1.000 0.764
Obtaining permission from local authority 1.000 0.607
Tool/equipment breakdown 1.000 0.732
Note: Extraction method: principal components analysis.
 Productivity determinants in Oman construction industry 435

4.2 Result 02: Reduction of these factors into the critical variables by principle
components analysis
Prior to principle components analysis, strength of each factor is examined by
communality to decide the accuracy of factor analysis (Ng and Tang, 2010). The
communities of all factors are shown in Table 3. It reveals that each factor has
communality greater than 0.5, which suggests their accuracy valid for factor analysis.
Principle components analysis with varimax orthogonal rotation is used to reduce 25
factors into highly predictive variables of productivity. Table 4 shows a total of ten
variables are developed, named as management, people, collaboration, commitment,
health and safety, logistics, operational activity, authority, quality, and financial matters
with Eigen values greater than 1.00.
Table 4 Ten variables are found by principle components analysis

Variable Percentage Factor

Variable labels Eigenvalue Factors
no. of variance loading
1 Management 3.937 15.748 Shortage of materials 0.807
(4 factors) Poor communication 0.797
Instruction time 0.710
Scheduled working overtime 0.626
2 People 2.441 9.766 Lack of responsibility 0.789
(2 factors) Staff team morality 0.776
3 Collaboration 1.985 7.939 Change orders 0.828
(4 factors) Rework 0.724
Inspection delay 0.719
Interferences from other trade 0.525
4 Commitment 1.604 6.415 Lack of professionalism 0.772
(2 factors) Changing of foremen 0.644
5 Health and safety 1.517 6.068 Safety (accident) 0.862
(2 factors) Work load 0.706
6 Logistics 1.251 5.004 Tool/equipment breakdown 0.740
(2 factors) Low technology 0.590
7 Operational activity 1.199 4.797 Shift/work timing 0.856
(2 factors) Poor site condition 0.560
8 Authority 1.135 4.541 Obtaining permission from 0.728
(2 factors) local authority
Bureaucracy 0.593
9 Quality 1.024 4.096 Incompetent supervisors 0.595
(3 factors) Lack of skilled manpower 0.588
Incomplete drawing 0.464
10 Financial matters 1.005 4.022 Contractor’s financial 0.722
(2 factors) difficulties
Fairness in financial 0.638
transactions
436 M.A. Islam and M.M.R.K. Khadem

4.3 Result 03: Reliability test of respondent’s answer and factor analysis
KMO MSA and Bartlett’s test of sphericity are measured to test the adequacy of the
collected data from respondents used in factor analysis. The result of Bartlett’s test of
sphericity are approx. Chi-square = 847.883, df = 300 and significance level, p = 0.000
and KMO MSA value is 0.694, which is suggested to be acceptable for factor analysis
(Hair et al., 1998). A statistic Cronbach’s alpha (Cα) for investigating the internal
consistency of questionnaire is examined for each variable (shown in Table 5).
Table 5 Cronbach’s alpha for each variable

Variables Cronbach’s alpha (Cα)

Management 0.650
People 0.773
Collaboration 0.623
Commitment 0.611
Health and safety 0.729
Logistics 0.767
Operational activity 0.697
Authority 0.617
Quality 0.682
Financial matters 0.710

4.4 Result 04: Ranking of problem categories responsible for construction

delay by means of RII
In order to elaborate the exploration of the construction industries, it is essential to
identify the responsible factors of construction delay. Table 6 shows that the owner,
consultant and coordination are the top three problem categories, which are followed by
contractor and foreman/worker in Omani construction industries. Rules and regulations,
and technology are ranked 6th and 7th respectively at overall seven problem categories
used in this study. Owner, consultant and coordination are essential at early design and
planning stage of a construction project. So, the ranking found in present study indicates
that problems are more severe at early stage than execution stage where contractor and
foreman/worker are comparatively more involved. Rules and regulations and technology
are required at all levels of a project.
Table 6 Ranking of problem categories responsible for construction delay

Rank Problem categories RII Mean (SD)

1 Owner 0.745 3.72 (0.88)
2 Consultant 0.689 3.44 (0.90)
3 Coordination 0.640 3.20 (0.94)
4 Contractor 0.613 3.06 (1.13)
5 Foreman/worker 0.592 2.96 (0.80)
6 Rules and regulations 0.518 2.59 (0.82)
7 Technology 0.458 2.29 (0.76)
 Productivity determinants in Oman construction industry 437

The respondent’s agreement on ranking the problem categories is examined by the

Spearman’s correlation coefficient at 1% significance level. It is found that the
Spearman’s correlation coefficients between owner and consultant, contractor and
consultant, contractor and owner, foreman/worker and consultant, foreman/worker and
contractor are found 0.878, 0.579, 0.582, 0.592, and 0.542 respectively that connotes a
better degree of agreements among the respondents.

5 Discussion of reduced variables

5.1 Management
The first variable is named as ‘management’ that illustrates 15.74% of total variances of
the linear component and eigenvalue is 3.937. Management at every level of construction
industries plays prime role in construction productivity. According to Deming (1982),
management can resolve almost 85% of business problem. In this study, management
variable includes four productivity factors such as, shortage of material, poor
communication, instruction time, and scheduled working overtime. Shortage of material
is ranked fourth in overall ranking of productivity factors. Shortage of material is
common in any construction industry (Makulsawatudom et al., 2004). In Oman, shortage
of materials is occurred not only for scarcity of material, rather it is due to improper
material planning by contractor, inaccurate specification by designers or consultants,
wrong calculation of lead time, poor communication among contractors, site managers,
foremen and vendors. Usage of low quality of material is common in case of change
order and reworks. It is observed that some materials come from abroad; in this case
material shortage or material quality mostly depends on fluctuation of prices. Scheduled
working overtime is ranked seventh in overall ranking. Surprisingly, working at overtime
is obligatory by management not only for site workers but also for employees at
consultancy and contractor firms. Most of the time, it is forced and unpaid overtime. Site
workers do not have the potentiality to ignore the overtime. Scheduled overtime is
happened both at afternoon (before lunch) and evening, which ultimately results to their
poor productivity. Instruction time for worker, is ranked 14th, is another evidence of
mismanagement in a construction industries. Workers do not know the work schedule
even in the morning of the working day. Foremen or contractors are used to act as a
policeman (to impose the order) in site, which is an effective way of control for unskilled
and temporary foreign worker according to foremen and contractors thought. Poor
communication is ranked 12th. It results to poor coordination among the parties (clearing
authority, owners, contractors, and consultants) (Chan and Yeong, 1995). It creates
delays in getting permission from authority, changing order and design, and reworks,
which are responsible for delaying the whole project work (Doloi et al., 2011; Hanna
et al., 1999).

5.2 People
The second variable is people, has two factors, such as lack of responsibility and staff
team morality, illustrating 9.76% of total variances of the linear component and
eigenvalue is 2.441. People are directly responsible and most important factor in
construction industries (Ng et al., 2004). Enshassi et al. (2009) report that people is one
438 M.A. Islam and M.M.R.K. Khadem

of the top three variables in Gaza trip’s construction performance. The factor lack of
responsibility is ranked 21st and staff team morality is ranked 19th in productivity factor.
Construction industries are full of unskilled and temporary workforce in this region.
Moreover, no financial awards, high rate of accidents, no health insurance especially for
workers, and no recreation facility in jobsite, results in lack of responsibility and less
morality among people in construction industries.

5.3 Collaboration

The third variable is collaboration, illustrating 7.93% of total variances of the linear
component and eigenvalue is 1.985. It has four factors such as: change orders, rework,
inspection delay, and interferences from other trade. Collaboration among diversified
parties provides strong teamwork in construction industry (Sveiby and Simons, 2002).
Lack of understanding, and coordination among the parties results in less knowledge
exchange, fear in relationship, and non-impressed behaviour towards others. A strong
team with trusty collaboration among the parties can mitigate the adverse impact of these
factors on productivity. Change orders, reworks and inspection delays are ranked as 15th,
7th, 13th respectively and interferences from other trade is ranked 20th in overall ranking
of productivity factors.

5.4 Commitment

All party’s commitment is required for successful completion of any construction work
(Iyer and Jha, 2005). Commitment is the fourth variable in this study, illustrating 6.42%
of total variances of the linear component and eigenvalue is 1.604. It has two factors: lack
of professionalism and changing of foremen. Lack of professionalism has highest impact
on productivity as it is the first ranked factor in overall ranking of productivity, according
to respondents in this study. It is found that the lack of long-term vision and reluctant
attitude at industry and company level of construction industries imparts lack of
professionalism at all levels of industries. Moreover, most of the contractors are
expatriates, consultants are fresh and expatriate mostly, foremen and workers are
unskilled and 100% expatriates in Oman construction industries. So, cultural
dissimilarity, lack of trust makes them unprofessional in workplace. Changing of
foremen, is ranked 11th in overall ranking, is very frequent in Oman due to lack of
commitment from owners and contractors. Foremen are changed by owner or by
contractor in purpose of paying less money. Sometime contractor is replaced by less paid
foremen by owner.

5.5 Health and safety

The fifth variable is health and safety, illustrating 6.06% of total variances of the linear
component and eigenvalue is 1.517. It has two factors such as, safety (accident), and
work load. Lack of safety in organisation produces more accident, injuries and fatalities,
which increase absence of employees, diminish productivity and result in large financial
loss (Kazaz and Ulubeyli, 2007). On the other hand, causes of unsafe workplace are not
only due to limited PPEs but also the unwillingness of employees to comply with safety
 Productivity determinants in Oman construction industry 439

rules and regulations. Improper work planning, (for instance, habit to wait maximum to
start the work) and tendency to take more work order raise more safety concern in
workplace. Safety (accident) is ranked 6th and workload is ranked 22nd in overall
ranking.

5.6 Logistics

The sixth variable is logistics, illustrating 5.00% of total variances of the linear
component and eigenvalue is 1.251. It has two factors such as, tool/equipment breakdown
and low technology. Proper and full geared construction work cannot be acquired without
suitable tool/equipment support (Long et al., 2004). Improper maintenance and inaccurate
equipment capacity calculation by contractor or foremen are the main causes of weak
logistics support (Makulsawatudom et al., 2004). Technology is essential in everywhere,
like in management, procurement, designing, generation and sharing the information, in
any construction project. The usage of technology in work is essential for successful
survival in today’s competitive construction business (Long et al., 2004). Here, it is found
that limited access to modern technology, lack of timely and irrelevant information are
the causes of large production cycles and slower decision making in construction
industries. Tool/equipment breakdown is ranked 25th and low technology is ranked 18th
in overall ranking of productivity.

5.7 Operational activity

The seventh variable is operational activity, illustrating 4.79% of total variances of the
linear component and eigenvalue is 1.199. It has two factors such as, shift/work timing
and poor site condition. Extreme hot weather is natural in this region due to very high
temperature and humidity. Even though, employees and workers are become habituate to,
shift/work timing in this weather incur lower work productivity, thus proper estimation of
workers and employees’ work productivity are essential. For example, hot weather is
advisably considered before estimating labour productivity in Indian construction (Doloi
et al., 2011). Limited and costly public transportation makes site condition poor in this
region. Moreover, incompetent foremen and contractor in work measurement and work
design make workplace miserable in some cases. Shift/work timing is ranked 16th and
poor site condition is ranked 17th in overall ranking of productivity.

5.8 Authority

The eighth variable is authority, illustrating 4.54% of total variances of the linear
component and eigenvalue is 1.135. It has two factors such as, obtaining permission from
local authority and bureaucracy. Obtaining permission from local authority is ranked 24th
in overall ranking. Slow response manner, lack of communication are the common
barriers of obtaining permission from local authority. Lack of intimacy among the parties
involved in industry causes late permission from local authority. The 9th overall ranked
factor is bureaucracy, which is apparent in both obtaining authority permission and
owners dealing that brings productivity troublesome in this region. Bureaucracy is found
to make management work slow in Vietnam (Long et al., 2004).
440 M.A. Islam and M.M.R.K. Khadem

5.9 Quality
The ninth variable is quality, illustrating 4.09% of total variances of the linear component
and eigenvalue is 1.024. It has three factors such as, incompetent supervisors, incomplete
drawing and lack of skilled manpower. Incompetent supervisors is ranked 3rd, are due to
wrong selection of supervisors, unskilled or non-professional workforce. Improper
planning, schedule problems, lacks of coordination among the parties are often visible
due to incompetent supervisors. Incomplete drawing, ranked 5th, is apparent due to
inexperience designers, quick requirements by owners, lack of budget, and lack of
coordination. Lack of skilled manpower, ranked 23rd, is a major concern in Omani
construction industries. Consultants (local or expatriate) are often new in their job
without enough previous training. It is surprising that not a single consultant is found in
this study having any training experience, even before or after joining the job. Workers
suddenly come from different job into construction and become construction workers,
who ultimately become foremen/supervisors without any further training.

5.10 Financial matters

The tenth variable is financial matters, illustrating 4.02% of total variances of the linear
component and eigenvalue is 1.005. It has two factors such as, contractor’s financial
difficulties and fairness in financial transactions. According to the respondents, coming
into business without long-term planning, not setting strategic vision, and tendency to
participate in maximum bid are the reasons of constructor’s financial difficulties in
Oman. These causes are finally responsible for incompetent project team and poor site
management (Long et al., 2004). Fairness in financial transactions makes workers, and
employees motivated and dedicated to their works. In this study, it is found that
unfairness in financial transactions are occurred frequently in these industries due to
unprofessional manner of both owners of construction works and owners of consultancy
firms, and contractors because of lack of trust, lack of communication among the parties
involved in construction industry. Workers often face unfairness in their wage payment.
It is found in this study that workers have been paying same payment since last five years
in spite of continuous inflation in worldwide. Not been paying agreed payment is
frequent in these industries not only for expatriate workers, also for expatriate consultants
and contractors, especially whose from some particular countries. Contractor’s financial
difficulties and fairness in financial transactions is ranked 10th and 2nd respectively in
overall ranking of productivity, indicates that these factors have good impact on
construction productivity in Oman.

6 Comparison of explored factors of construction industry among

countries

The purpose of studying the comparison of construction factors among countries is to

know some similar and dissimilar factors of construction industry around the world,
which is act as a basis of investigating any unexplored sectors in any country. Table 7
shows the detail comparisons.
 Major productivity factors of construction industry
Country Explored area
1 2 3 4 5 Table 7
Iran (2012) Materials/tools Construction technology Planning Supervision system Rework Productivity factors
and method
Indonesia (1997) Lack of materials Rework Absenteeism Interference Lack of tools Productivity factors
Thailand (2004) Lack of materials Incomplete drawing Incompetent supervision Lack of tools and Absenteeism Productivity factors
equipment
Thailand (2008) Visionary leadership Incentive or reward Collaboration Trust Information technology Key knowledge factors
Vietnam (2004) Inaccurate time Slow site clearance Excessive change orders Slow government permits Severe overtime Productivity factors
estimation
USA (2009) Construction equipment Materials Tools and consumable Engineering drawing Direction and Productivity factors
goods management coordination
Gaza strip (2009) Project complexity Number of new Management-labour Absenteeism rate Sequencing of work Productivity factors
project/year relationship
Lebanon (1998) Slowness of the owner’s NA Preparation and approval Obtaining permit from NA Delays factors
decision-making process of drawings the municipality (contractors’ perspective)
India (2011) Delay is material Non-availability of Financial constraints of Increase in scope of work Obtaining permission Delay factors
delivery by vendors drawing on time contractor from local authority
UAE (2006) Preparation and approval Inadequate early Slowness of the owner’s Shortage of manpower Poor supervision and Delays factors
of drawings planning of the project decision-making process poor site management
Chile (2011) Materials Tools Rework Equipment Truck availability Productivity factor
Italy (2012) Experience and skill of Size of the construction Site management Design deficiencies or Delivery delay – Productivity factor
construction crew crew mistakes equipment deficiencies
Saudi Arabian Shortage of manpower Contractor experience Shortage of materials Lack of finance Short contract duration Delay factor
(2009)
Productivity determinants in Oman construction industry

Qatar (2012) Skill of labour Shortage of materials Labour supervision Shortage of experienced Communication between Productivity factor
labour site management and
labour force
Kuwait (2012) Change orders Financial constraints Owner’s lack of Materials Weather Delay/cost factor
experience
Comparison of explored factors of construction industries among countries

Oman (2007) Financial Management team Variation orders and Accuracy of project Material Risk factors on time and
capability/failure additional works programme prices/availability/ cost overruns
supply/quality
Oman (2012) in Lack of professionalism Fairness in financial Incompetent supervisors Shortage of materials Incomplete drawing Productivity factors
present study transactions
441
442 M.A. Islam and M.M.R.K. Khadem

Table 7 shows top five factors of productivity in Thailand were lack of material,
incomplete drawing, incompetent supervisors, lack of tools and equipment, and
absenteeism (Makulsawatudom et al., 2004), whereas another study called key
knowledge factors of Thai construction practice by Teerajetgul et al. (2009) had indicated
the top six critical factors were visionary leadership, incentive or rewards, collaboration,
trust, information technology, and individual competency or skills.
In Iran, it was found that material/tool shortage, construction technology and method,
planning, supervisor system, and rework were the top factors of construction productivity
(Ghoddousi and Hosseini, 2012). In Chile construction industry, top five factors affecting
productivity were materials, tools, rework, equipment, and truck availability (Rivas et al.,
2011). In Italy, major five productivity factor were experience and skill of construction
crew, size of the construction crew, site management, design deficiencies or mistakes and
delivery delay – equipment deficiencies (Pellegrino et al., 2012). In Qatar construction
industry, top five productivity factors were skill of labour, shortage of materials, labour
supervision, shortage of experienced labour, and communication between site
management and labour force (Jarkas et al., 2012). In Indonesia, lack of materials,
rework, absenteeism, interferences and lack of tools were reported as the top productivity
factors of construction industries (Kaming et al., 1997). However, inaccurate time
estimation, slow site clearance, excessive change orders, slow government permits and
severe overtime were the major factors of construction productivity in Vietnam (Long
et al., 2004), whereas construction equipment, materials, tools and consumable goods,
engineering drawing management, and direction and coordination were the top ranked
productivity factors in case of construction industry in the USA (Dai et al., 2009). In
some countries, construction industries were investigated through the construction delay
factors, for example, Saudi Arabia (Al-Kharashi and Skitmore, 2009); Kuwait (Koushki
et al., 2005); Lebanon (Mezher and Tawil, 1998); India (Doloi et al., 2011); and UAE
(Faridi and El-Sayegh, 2006).
In addition, Omani construction projects have been studied once before with a sample
size of 43 professional respondents that identified a total of 32 significant risk factors. Of
them, financial capability/failure, management team, variation orders and additional
works, accuracy of project programme, material prices/availability/supply/quality were
ranked as the top five risk factors (Ballal et al., 2007). The present study involves in
identification of productivity factors and problem categories responsible for construction
delay in Oman reflects the earlier result found by Ballal et al. (2007). Contractor’s
financial difficulty was identified as top significant risk factor on time and cost overruns
in Omani construction industries, whereas in present study it is identified as 10th
significant factor of productivity. It seems that Omani construction industries overcome
this problem presently, but practically, it is found that along with some other new issues
(mentioned in Section 5.10) contractor’s financial difficulties results in some other new
factors such as, unfairness in financial transactions, and unprofessional manner in Omani
construction industries. As a result, present study shows that lack of professionalism is
the top significant factor of productivity, which is followed by fairness in financial
transactions, incompetent supervisors, shortage of material, and incomplete drawing as
productivity factors in case of Omani small and medium construction industries.
Materials shortage/availability was also found as fourth significant factor in previous
study. It seems that the material shortage still has greater influences on Omani
construction works. Although lack of materials is one of the main concerns in
construction industries in today’s very fast urbanisation in around the world (Ghoddousi
 Productivity determinants in Oman construction industry 443

and Hosseini, 2012; Rivas et al., 2011; Zakeri et al., 1997; Kaming et al., 1997;
Makulsawatudom et al., 2004).

7 Conclusions

Worldwide, construction industries play a major role in socio-economic development, as

because for any infrastructure development construction industry is essential. The same
picture is true for Oman, in which various new sectors of development are continuing for
the purpose of reducing large economic dependencies on oil and petroleum. Each sector
of them involves huge construction works and commonly, each of them is experiencing
construction productivity problems widely. In order to improve the productivity problem,
it is advisable to identity the factors/determinants involve in construction industries. In
this response, this study is aimed to investigate the determinants of productivity and their
co-relationship; and to identify the most problem categories responsible for construction
delay in the context of small and medium construction industries in Oman. A list of total
25 factors of productivity collected from published literature are given to rank each factor
on a five-point Likert scales to several parties involved in Omani construction industries
that has total numbers of employees less than 50. After calculating the RII of each factor,
it is found that lack of professionalism, fairness in financial transactions, incompetent
supervisors, shortage of materials, and incomplete drawings are the top five significant
factors of productivity. In addition, these 25 factors are further grouped into ten critical
variables of productivity by means of principle components analysis. The critical
variables are: management, people, collaboration, health and safety, logistics,
commitment, operational, authority, quality, and financial matters. Moreover, beside the
productivity factor, the respondents are also requested to rank a total of 7 problem
categories responsible for construction delay in this context. According to highest RII
found from the respondent’s result, the problem categories are as follows: owner,
consultant, coordination, contractor, foreman/worker, rules and regulations, and
technology. The order of problem categories are the similar reflection of the productivity
factors identified in this study. Because the top factors of productivity such as lack of
professionalism and fairness in financial transactions are due to the owners of
construction works, and owners of consultancy firms and contractors. In a comparison of
the results of present study to different countries construction productivity factors depicts
that Omani construction industries is confronting some unique challenges.

7.1 Implications of the study

In general, identifying the productivity factors and delay factors of construction industries
are quite common in research communities. But the tradition of implementing any
research outcomes into practice is yet too common in some construction industries like
Oman, because construction works are dealt in this region still by an ad-hoc management.
Thus, factors found in this study should be integrated in the main thought of construction
processes for improving productivity obstructions. As a subsequent, this research work
would be considered as a great implication to the researchers and the decision makers in
the area construction productivity in the country, by the way that focus on the ten critical
factors and 25 significant factors found will not only improve productivity and profit, but
also will act as competitive weapons in the continued fierce construction market. These
444 M.A. Islam and M.M.R.K. Khadem

factors can be used as decision making variables for the managers that will facilitate
productivity of the business; in addition, these factors can be used as a pivot for any other
productivity study in the businesses and industries.

7.2 Contributions of the study

The novel contributions of this research are recognised from its maiden study of critical
productivity factors identification in this context. The outcomes would provide
construction industry turn signal and road maps for a successful survival in Oman and in
other industries as well.

7.3 Limitations and future study

The presence of scepticism within the industry about the benefit of research works to
their own businesses is one of the basic limitations this study encountered. For this
reason, respondents were not willing to provide useful information timely. In addition,
though best endeavours were given in this study and findings do make a substantial
contribution, this study has some other limitations. Such as respondents were from
different professional levels and their numbers were not equal, so each level of
respondent may have different ranking of productivity, in spite of their degree of
agreement was found significant in this study. However, a regression model could have
been generated from the factors of productivity and a detail reason of poor productivity
and delay, and their impact on construction productivity in Oman has to be studied
thoroughly which are the recommended for future work.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank The Research Centre (TRC) of Sultanate of Oman for
financial support for this research study under the project no: RC/ENG/MIED/10/01. The
authors also would like to thank the anonymous reviewers of the paper for their
constructive comments and suggestions.

References
Abdel-Razek, R.H., Elshakour, M.H.A. and Abdel-Hamid, M. (2007) ‘Labor productivity:
benchmarking and variability in Egyptian projects’, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp.189–197.
Adebowale, B.O.A. and Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, B. (2012) ‘Determinants of productivity and
inter-firm collaboration in Nigerian clusters’, International Journal of Technology and
Globalisation, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.188–205.
Al-Ghamdi, S.M., Kazmi, A. and Banaemah, M.S. (2011) ‘Corporate management of productivity
in private sector firms across Saudi Arabia’, Journal for Global Business Advancement,
Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.118–142.
Alinaitwe, H.M., Mwakali, J.A. and Hansson, B. (2007) ‘Factors affecting the productivity of
building craftsmen-studies of Uganda’, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management,
Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.169–176.
 Productivity determinants in Oman construction industry 445

Al-Kharashi, A. and Skitmore, M. (2009) ‘Causes of delays in Saudi Arabian public sector
construction projects’, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp.3–23.
Allan, C., Dungan, A. and Peetz, D. (2010) ‘Anomalies’, damned ‘Anomalies’ and statistics:
construction industry productivity in Australia’, Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 52,
No. 1, pp.61–79.
Arora, H. and Arora, P. (2012) ‘Bank productivity measurement using Hicks-Moorsteen indices:
evidence from Indian public sector banks’, International Journal of Business Performance
Management, Vol. 13, Nos. 3/4, pp.386–407.
Ballal, T., Elhag, T. and Ambusaidy, S. (2007) ‘Project risk management in Oman: a survey of risk
practices in the construction industry’, CIB World Building Congress, pp.549–557.
Bielsa, J. and Duarte, R. (2011) ‘Size and linkages of the Spanish construction industry: key sector
or deformation of the economy?’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 35, No. 2,
pp.317–334.
Chan, A.P.C. and Yeong, C.M. (1995) ‘A comparison of strategies for reducing variations’,
Construct Manage Economy, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp.467–473.
Chia, F.C. (2012) ‘Construction and economic development: the case of Malaysia’, International
Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp.23–35.
Chia, F.C., Skitmore, M., Runeson, G. and Bridge, A. (2012) ‘An analysis of construction
productivity in Malaysia’, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 30, No. 12,
pp.1–15.
Costello, A.B. and Osborne, J.W. (2005) ‘Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four
recommendations for getting the most from your analysis’, Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, Vol. 10, No. 7, pp.1–9.
Dai, J., Goodrum, P.M., Maloney, W.F. and Srinivasan, C. (2009) ‘Latent structures of the factors
affecting construction labor productivity’, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 135, No. 5, pp.397–406.
Deming, W.E. (1982) Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position, Center for Advance
Engineering Study, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., USA.
Desai, D.A. (2012) ‘Quality and productivity improvement through Six Sigma in foundry industry’,
International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.258–280.
Dey, P.K., Ho, W., Charoenngam, C. and Deewong, W. (2008) ‘Relationship characteristics within
the supply chain of small and medium-sized construction enterprises in Thailand’,
International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management,Vol. 15, No. 1,
pp.102–118.
Doloi, H. (2009) ‘Analysis of pre-qualification criteria in contractor selection and their impacts on
project success’, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 27, No. 12, pp.1245–1263.
Doloi, H., Sawhney, A., Iyer, K.C. and Rentala, S. (2011) ‘Analyzing factors affecting delays in
Indian construction projects’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 30, No. 4,
pp.479–489.
Dzeng, R. and Wu, J. (2012) ‘The cost efficiency of construction industry in Taiwan’, The Open
Construction and Building Technology Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2012, pp.8–16.
El-Maghraby, E., Frick, J. and Irgens, C. (2011) ‘Factors affecting pouring ready mix concrete
production rate using tower cranes in Egypt’, International Journal of Data Analysis
Techniques and Strategies, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp.353–374.
Enshassi, A., Mohamed, S. and Abushaban, S. (2009) ‘Factors affecting the performance of
construction projects in the Gaza strip’, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management,
Vol. 1, No. 3, pp.269–280.
Faridi, A. and El-Sayegh, S. (2006) ‘Significant factors causing delay in the UAE construction
industry’, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 24, No. 11, pp.1167–1176.
Field, A. (2005) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, Sage Publications, London.
446 M.A. Islam and M.M.R.K. Khadem

Ghoddousi, P. and Hosseini, M.R. (2012) ‘A survey of the factors affecting the productivity of
construction projects in Iran’, Technological and Economic Development of Economy,
Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.99–116.
Goodrum, P.M., Zhai, D. and Yasin, M.F. (2009) ‘Relationship between changes in material
technology and construction productivity’, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 135, No. 4, pp.278–287.
Gouett, M.C., Haas, C.T., Goodrum, P.M. and Caldas, C.H. (2011) ‘Activity analysis for
direct-work rate improvement in construction’, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 137,
No. 12, pp.1117–1124.
Grimes, C.F. (2007) Employee Motivation, the Organizational Environment and Productivity,
Accel-Team.Com, Accel-Team, Cumbria.
Hair, J.E. et al. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey.
Hanna, A.S., Russel, J.S., Nordheim, E.V. and Bruggink, M.J. (1999) ‘Impact of change orders on
labor efficiency for electrical construction’, Journal of Construct Engineering Management,
ASCE, Vol. 125, No. 4, pp.224–232.
Hanson, D.N. (2006) Causes of Client Dissatisfaction in the South African Building Industry and
Ways of Improvement: The Contractors’ Perspectives, MSc thesis in Building, University of
the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Haskel, J., Goodridge, P., Pesole, A., Awano, G., Franklin, M. and Kastrinaki, Z. (2011) Driving
Economic Growth: Innovation, Knowledge Spending and Productivity Growth in the UK,
NESTA, London.
Hohns, H.M. (1979) Preventing and Solving Construction Contract Disputes, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.
Huang, A.L., Chapman, R.E. and Butry, D.T. (2009) Metrics and Tools for Measuring
Construction Productivity: Technical and Empirical Considerations, NIST Spec. Publ. 1101,
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Iyer, K.C. and Jha, K.N. (2005) ‘Factors affecting cost performance: evidence from Indian
construction projects’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 23, No. 4,
pp.283–295.
Jaaskelainen, A. (2010) ‘Identifying factors affecting public service productivity’, International
Journal of Services Technology and Management, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.360–375.
Jaffar, N., Abdul-Tharim, A.H. and Mohd-Kamar, I.F. (2011) ‘A literature review of ergonomics
risk factors in construction industry’, Procedia Engineering, 2nd International Building
Control Conference, Vol. 20, pp.89–97.
James, P.M., Rust, A.A.B. and Kingma, L. (2012) ‘The well-being of workers in the South African
construction industry: a model for employment assistance’, African Journal of Business
Management, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp.1553–1558.
Jarkas, A.M. and Bitar, C.G. (2012) ‘Factors affecting construction labor productivity in Kuwait’,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 138, No. 7, pp.811–820.
Jarkas, A.M. and Radosavljevic, M. (2012) ‘Motivational factors impacting the productivity of
construction master craftsmen in Kuwait’, Journal of Management in Engineering, 17
October.
Jarkas, A.M., Kadri, C.Y. and. Younes, J.H. (2012) ‘A survey of factors influencing the
productivity of construction operatives in the state of Qatar’, The International Journal of
Construction Management, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.1–23.
Kaiser, H.F. (1974) ‘An index of factorial simplicity’, Psychometrika, Vol. 39, No. 1, pp.31–36.
Kaming, P.F., Olomolaiye, P.O., Holt, G.D. and Harris, F.C. (1997) ‘Factor influencing
construction time and cost overruns on high-rise projects in Indonesia’, Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.83–94.
Kazaz, A. and Ulubeyli, S. (2007) ‘Drivers of productivity among construction workers: a study in
a developing country’, Building and Environment, Vol. 42, No. 5, pp.2132–2140.
 Productivity determinants in Oman construction industry 447

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.
Krugman, P. (1997) The Age of Diminished Expectations, US Economic Policy in the 1990s,
3rd ed., New York Times book review, USA.
Lam, P.T.I. and Wong, F.W.H. (2011) ‘A comparative study of buildability perspectives between
clients, consultants and contractors’, Construction Innovation: Information, Process,
Management, Vol. 11, No. 3 pp.305–320.
Lema, N.M. (1995) Construction of Labour Productivity Modeling, University of Dar El-salaam,
Tanzania.
Li, Q. and Song, Y. (2012) ‘Productivity growth in Chinese construction industry considering solid
wastes generation’, Advanced Materials Research, Vol. 472–475, No. 2012, pp.3316–3319.
Li, Y. and Liu, C. (2012) ‘Labor productivity measurement with variable returns to scale in
Australia’s construction industry’, Architectural Science Review, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp.110–118.
Long, N.D., Ogunlana, S., Quang, T. and Lam, K.C. (2004) ‘Large construction projects in
developing countries: a case study from Vietnam’, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 22, No. 7, pp.553–561.
Makulsawatudom, A., Emsley, M. and Sinthawanarong, K. (2004) ‘Critical factors influencing
construction productivity in Thailand’, The Journal of KMITNB, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.1–6.
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.
Mojahed, S. and Aghazadeh, F. (2008) ‘Major factors influencing productivity of water and
wastewater treatment plant construction: evidence from the deep south USA’, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp.195–202.
Moselhi, O. and Khan, Z. (2012) ‘Significance ranking of parameters impacting construction labour
productivity’, Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Management, Vol. 12, No. 3,
pp.272–296.
Navon, R. (2005) ‘Automated project performance control of construction projects’, Automation in
Construction, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.467–476.
Ng, S.T. and Tang, Z. (2010) ‘Labour-intensive construction sub-contractors: their critical success
factors’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 28, No. 7, pp.732–740.
Ng, S.T., Skitmore, R.M., Lam, K.C. and Poon, A.W.C. (2004) ‘Demotivating factors influencing
the productivity of civil engineering projects’, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.139–146.
O’Brien, K.E. and Associates, Inc. (2008) Improvement of Onsite Productivity, K.E. O’Brien and
Associates, Inc., Toronto, Ontario.
Odeh, A.M. and Battaineh, H.T. (2002) ‘Causes of construction delay: traditional contracts’,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.67–73.
Odhigu, F.O., Yahya, A., Rani, N.S.A. and Shaikh, J.M. (2012) ‘Investigation into the impacts of
procurement systems on the performance of construction projects in East Malaysia’,
International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.103–135.
Ofori, G. (2006) ‘Revaluing construction in developing countries: a research agenda’, Journal of
Construction in Developing Countries, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.1–16.
Olawale, Y.A. and Sun, M. (2010) ‘Cost and time control of construction projects: inhibiting
factors and mitigating measures in practice’, Construction Management and Economics,
Vol. 28, No. 5, pp.509–526.
Oman Chamber of Commerce and Industry (2005) Annual Development Report [online]
http://www.chamberoman.com/pdf/ChamberAnnualReport2005.pdf (accessed 16 October
2011).
 448 M.A. Islam and M.M.R.K. Khadem

Pellegrino, R., Costantino, N., Pietroforte, R. and Sancilio, S. (2012) ‘Construction of multi-storey
concrete structures in Italy: patterns of productivity and learning curves’, Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp.103–115.
Phusavat, K., Nilmaneenava, S., Kanchana, R., Wernz, C. and Helo, P. (2012) ‘Identifying
productivity indicators from business strategies’ surveys’, International Journal of
Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.158–176.
PwC (2012) Middle East Region, Oman [online] http://www.pwc.com/m1/en/countries/oman.jhtml
(accessed 16 October 2011).
Ray, S. and Ray, I.A. (2012) ‘Malmquist indices of productivity change in India’s chemical
industry: a subsector-level analysis’, International Journal of Economic Policy in Emerging
Economies, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.16–36.
Rivas, R.A., Borcherding, J.D., Gonzalez, V. and Alarcon, L.F. (2011) ‘Analysis of factors
influencing productivity using craftsmen questionnaires: case study in a Chilean construction
company’, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 137, No. 4,
pp.312–320.
Ruddock, L. and Ruddock, S. (2011) ‘Evaluation of trends in the UK construction industry
using growth and productivity accounts’, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 29,
No. 12, pp.1229–1239.
Sambasivan, M. and Soon, Y.W. (2007) ‘Causes and effects of delays in Malaysian construction
industry’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25, No. 2007, pp.517–526.
Setijono, D. (2010) ‘A conceptual framework for managing the performance of construction supply
chain’, International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 5, No. 1,
pp.1–20.
Shehata, M.E. and El-Gohary, K.M. (2011) ‘Towards improving construction labor productivity
and projects’ performance’, Alexandria Engineering Journal, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp.321–330.
Sufian, F. (2010) ‘Sources of banks’ productivity growth in a developing economy: efficiency
change or technological progress?’, International Journal of Management and Enterprise
Development, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.179–200.
Sufian, F. (2012) ‘Determinants of banks’ total factor productivity: the post-Asian financial crisis
experience of the Philippines’, International Journal of Business Excellence, Vol. 5, Nos. 1/2,
pp.77–100.
Sveiby, K. and Simons, R. (2002) ‘Collaborative climate and effectiveness of knowledge work – an
empirical study’, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp.420–433.
Teerajetgul, W., Chareonngam, C. and Wethyavivorn, P. (2009) ‘Key knowledge factors in Thai
construction practice’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27, No. 8,
pp.833–839.
The Consulate General of the Sultanate of Oman-Australia (2012) Govt. Spending in Construction
Industry to Jump 23% at $10b [online] http://oman.org.au/general-news/387 (accessed 1
February).
Toor, S. and Ogunlana, S.O. (2008) ‘Problems causing delays in major construction projects in
Thailand’, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp.395–408.
Xue, X., Shen, Q., Wang, Y. and Lu, J. (2008) ‘Measuring the productivity of the construction
industry in China by using DEA-based Malmquist productivity indices’, Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 134, No. 1, pp.64–71.
Yu, J. and Lee, H. (2002) ‘Productivity management system for construction projects’, Journal of
the Architectural Institute of Korea, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp.103–113.
Zakeri, M., Olomolaiye, P., Holt, G.D. and Harris, F.C. (1997) ‘Factors Affecting the motivation of
Iranian construction operatives’, Building and Environment, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp.161–166.
Zhang, X. (2005) ‘Concessionaire’s financial capability in developing build-operate-transfer type
infrastructure projects’, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 131,
No. 10, pp.1054–1064.

View publication stats