evaluating the quality control related factors to ...€¦ · defects in construction projects in...

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 923 [email protected]

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)

Volume 9, Issue 6, June 2018, pp. 923–937, Article ID: IJCIET_09_06_105

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=6

ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

EVALUATING THE QUALITY CONTROL

RELATED FACTORS TO ENGINEERING

DEFECTS IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

IN JORDAN

Dr. Faidhi A-R S Alubaid

Associate Professor, Isra Unv., Amman, Jordan

Dr. Rami H F Alhadeethi

Associate Professor, Jordan Unv., Amman, Jordan

M. Eng. Ala J Alnajjar

Civil Engineering, Amman, Jordan

ABSTRACT

Construction projects play a vital role in the development of Jordan. Quality

control performance is one of the important features in all projects successes.

Problems occur frequently during construction projects life-time leading to disputes,

delays and litigations. Therefor it is essential to study and analyze all quality control

related factors and it is association with engineering defects. This research identifies

nine of these factors that have the greatest impact to arise. Subsequently, a

questionnaire survey was presented into 79 question. The questionnaire survey was

distributed to 196 specialist engineers represent a selected sample from the Jordanian

Engineers Association. Statistical analysis was carried out by employing the (SPSS)

program. Data related the quality control factors and that’s effects the engineering

defects were analyzed and discussed in details.

Key words: Construction projects management; Quality control; Engineering defects;

Statistical analysis.

Cite this Article: Dr. Faidhi A-R S Alubaid, Dr. Rami H F Alhadeethi and M.Eng.

Ala J Alnajjar, Evaluating the Quality Control Related Factors to Engineering Defects

in Construction Projects in Jordan, International Journal of Civil Engineering and

Technology, 9(6), 2018, pp. 923–937

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=6

1. INTRODUCTION

Due to the growth and development of the construction industry in Jordan considered the

most important sector in the economy, it has a significant effect on the efficiency and

development of other businesses. Construction projects are full of problems, and most of

Evaluating the Quality Control Related Factors to Engineering Defects in Construction Projects in Jordan


these problems are severe and need powerful and suitable methods to overcome or at least

reduce their consequences. There are many factors affecting construction quality, such as

design, time, cost, teamwork, communication, safety, monitoring, documents availability and

administrative. Because of the fixed project location, large volume and different projects

environments, poor control of these factors will produce quality problems. During controlling

the whole process of construction, only accord with the required quality standards and user

promising requirements, fulfilling quality, time, cost, etc., construction process could get the

best economic effects.

This study is created in associate with the research carried by AlNajjar [1] and the

objectives are set to fulfill; First Identifying the relationship between all quality control

related factors and engineering defects, and determining the factors that have the greatest

impact to arise the engineering defects in construction projects. Second Clarifying the most

common engineering defects resulting from misapplication of the quality control related

factors in construction projects in Jordan.

2. LIERATURE REVIEW

Various literatures related to the projects are reviewed. Some researchers have studied the

reasons of and the factors affecting cost overrun, time delay, quality management, quality

performance, workman ship, and conflicts in construction projects in many countries.

However, there are a lack of studies concerned with the quality control related factors and

engineering defects in construction projects in Jordan. Al-Hazim, AbuSalem & Ahmad [2]

investigate the factors that may cause overrun of the planned cost, allocated resources and

scheduled time of infrastructure engineering projects in Jordan. The analysis showed that

delay and cost overrun of infrastructure projects were caused by 20 factors according to the

records in the collected final reports of projects. The results showed that Terrain and Weather

conditions are the top factors causing completion delay and cost overrun in infrastructure

projects in Jordan.

Aziz [3] identified the factors causing cost variation for constructing wastewater projects

in Egypt. The most cost variation can also be made by the owner due to additional work;

while the less effect factor identified by the obtained results is authority of construction

industry by foreign firms and aids is related to ‘‘Miscellaneous Category’’.

Alhomidan [4] identified factors affecting cost overrun in road construction projects in

Saudi Arabia from contractors’ viewpoint. The most severe factors are; internal administrative

problems, payments delay, poor communication between construction parties, and delays in

decision making. The results showed that most of the critical factors are managerial factors

that could be controlled and minimized by improving the managerial skills of the construction

teams by conducting proper trainings and workshops.

Marzouk & El-Rasas [5] analyzed causes of construction delays in Egypt. The feedback of

construction experts was obtained through interviews and questionnaire. Surveys was

distributed to thirty-three construction experts who represent owners, consultants, and

contractor’s organizations. Frequency Index, Severity Index, and Importance Index are

calculated and according to the highest values of them the top ten delay causes of construction

projects in Egypt are determined.

Gebrehiwet & Luo [6] investigates the typical causes of delay at different stages of

construction and its effect in the Ethiopian construction projects. The critical effects of delay

investigated are cost overruns, time overrun, termination of contract, arbitration, and litigation

sequentially.

Dr. Faidhi A-R S Alubaid, Dr. Rami H F Alhadeethi and M.Eng. Ala J Alnajjar


Gluszak & Lesniak [7]. aimed at identifying the most important causes of delays in

construction works in Poland from the client’s perspective. Factor analysis helped to

distinguish three main latent factors first, involving activities and neglect, second associated

with investor problems and third connected with external circumstances on which the parties

of the contract have a limited or no influence.

Elawia, Algahtanyb & Kashiwagic [8] identifies the main causes of delay in infrastructure

projects in Mecca. Average delay in infrastructure projects in Mecca was found to be 39%.

The most severe cause of delay was found to be the land acquisition factor. Additionally,

other factors that contribute to delay include contractors’ lack of expertise, re-designing, and

haphazard underground utilities.

Kikwasi [9] concluded that a number of delay causes and disruptions, which put the

construction projects in Tanzania at a great risk, have an effect on their performance. These

causes are: design changes, delays in payment to contractors, information delays, funding

problems, poor project management, compensation issues, multiple projects by contractors

and disagreement on the valuation of work done. Sambasivan & Soon[10] added to those

causes in Malaysia; subcontractor problems, shortage in materials, labor supply and

equipment availability.

Shobana & Ambika [11] focuses in their study on identifying and scrutinizing the factors

that affects construction quality in India. The study revealed that the significant factors are

occurrence of meeting, environmental risks, working hours, material delay, and labor

shortage, coordination, checking inventory level, resource delay, coordination and safety

precautions. Majorly it can be categorized under labor and material related factors. In

construction, labors and materials are to be focused in order to improve productivity which

greatly increases quality. Environmental risks

cannot be predicted in construction but the works can be preplanned according to the

present climatic conditions.

Al-Adhmawi & Al-Ani [12] illustrated that constructing companies in Jordan still suffer

from the lack of a system of site quality management. Through interviewing the managers and

the constructors, the researchers have concluded that there is a misunderstanding of the

concept of quality management and the poor level of techniques used in construction industry

and its application in the construction industry; the managers indicated that the main two

reasons of quality faults are: the lack of proper building materials.

Abu Shaban & Saleh Samir [13] categorized the main practical problems of projects

performance in the Gaza Strip, the most important factors agreed by the owners, consultants

and contractors as the main factors affecting the performance of construction projects were

escalation of material prices, availability of resources as planned through project duration,

average delay because of closures and materials shortage and leadership skills for project

manager.

Iyer & Jha [14] determine the critical factors affecting quality performance in construction

projects in Indian. They concluded that the project manager’s competence, top management

support and their competence, interaction between project participants, owners competence,

monitoring and feedback by project participants are the factors which have a positive

contributions to achieve the desired quality level, while factors such as conflict among project

participants, climatic condition, lack of knowledge, some project specific factors and

aggressive competition at the tender stage are found to adversely affect the quality

performances of projects.



Akhavan & etl. [15] founded that 42% of workforces in the respondents’ firms in Africa

were unskilled, in addition, most of the companies encountered with damages by assigning

the works to inexperienced workers. The study revealed that workers’ participation,

recognition, awards, promotions, financial incentives are profitable methods of motivating the

employees for training.

Ali & Wen [16] suggested that the factors that contribute to poor workmanship in

Malaysia include: poor project management, complicated role of subcontractor, lack of

experience and competency of labors, language obstacle to communicate and lack of

communication, unsuitable of construction equipment, poor weather condition and limited

time and cost.

Jaffar & etl. [17] significantly overviewed that conflict would arise due to behavioral

problems such as poor communication among project team, multicultural team problem and

unprepared to check for constructability, clarity and completeness of project. Conflict also

arises due to the factors of contractual problem which includes delay temporary payment from

owner; client fails to respond in timely manner, application of extension of time and improper

project schedules. Other than that, contractor's quality of work, error of pricing or costing, late

instructions from architect or engineer also considered as factors of conflict which is due to

technical problems.

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Achieving the objective of this research is maintained by designing a questionnaire

establishing sample size, validity content, pilot study, reliability and analyzing and discussing

the data which were collected by questionnaire using SPSS program, and the relationship

between quality control factors and defects that are determined. The questionnaire was

designed in four stages, Initial questionnaire list, expert review, pilot questionnaire, and final

questionnaire list. The questionnaire final form was finalized for utilize in the survey,

comprised demographic information presented into 70 question and grouped to nine

categories related to quality control factors see Table-5. Nine question concern with

engineering defects factors presented in Table-7. The five Likert scales which is the

procedure that used in answering the questions in the questionnaires to obtain participant’s

preferences or degree of agreement with a statement or set of statements according to the

importance of each item as shown in Table-1.

Table 1 Degree of Importance:

Category Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Scale 5 4 3 2 1

The population for this research consists of civil, architecture, mechanical, and electrical

engineers who have a valid registration at the Jordanian Engineers Association in Jordan.

There is an over fifty thousand engineers in Jordan, the researcher focused on investigating a

small sample to generalize the results to the entire sample. The selection of the research

sample was based on selecting population size from engineers with minimum experience of

10 years. The size of the sample required from the target population was determine according

to Israel [18];

,



where; m the Sample size. n the Correction sample size for limited population. N the

Population. Z the Value related with confidence level (1.96 for 95% confidence level). P the

Degree of variance between the elements of population (0.5). ε the Maximum error (0.07).

Over 200 questionnaire forms were distributed, 196 were responded, weight for each

engineer's specialist is shown in the following Table-2.

Table 2 Weight for Engineers Specialist:

Engineer specialist Percent Related to the total The sample size number

Civil Engineers 45.0% 88

Architecture Engineers 26.5% 52

Mechanical Engineers 16.2% 32

Electrical Engineers 12.3% 24

Total 100% 196

4. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:

Qualitative and quantitative data analysis methods were used to analyze the data; it was

carried out by employing the (SPSS) program.

4.1. Reliability Analysis:

Measures the consistency over time and over similar samples expectedly, a reliable instrument

for a piece of research should produce same data from similar respondents over time; George

and Mallery [19]. Cronbach's coefficient (α) was calculated to estimate the internal

consistency of reliability of a measurement scale. Normally ranges between 0 and 1.0, the

closer cronbach’s alpha coefficient is to 1.0 the greater the internal consistency of the items in

the scale, based upon the following Equation;

Where; K the number of questions. the summation of standard variation square.

the square of total standard variation. The limitations of α where classified in Table-3.

Table 3 Cronbach’s alpha coefficient limitations:

Criteria Excellent Good Acceptable Questionable Poor Unacceptable

Cronbach's

Alpha

(α) > 0.9 0.9 - 0.8 0.8 - 0.7 0.7 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.5 (α) < 0.5

The draft of the questionnaires was presented to 25 expertise in academic and practical

fields, to assess the clarity and comprehensiveness of each statement and how it is related to

the elements that are need to be measured.

Table-4 shows the values of reliability concerning the quality control factors in

construction projects. The overall (questionnaire) reliability value was (0.870), and these

values reflect a good reliability indication.



Table 4 Questioner Reliability:

No. Quality Control Factors No. of

Items Reliability

1 Design Related Defects 8 0.902

2 Time Related Defects 10 0.705

3 Cost Related Defects 9 0.877

4 Team Work Related Defects 10 0.720

5 Communications and Contact Related defects 5 0.795

6 Occupational and Safety Related defects 6 0.879

7 Documents and information availability related

defects 7 0.859

8 Monitoring Related Defects 9 0.755

9 Administrative Related Defects 6 0.879

Total Quality Control 70 0.870

4.2. Data Analysis for Quality Control Factors

The values of means, standard deviations and skewness was calculated following MacMillan

[20] and relative importance index after Iyer & Jha [21].

Where; fi the number of respondents who answer the ith option. Xi the weight that

assigned to ith option. n the total number of respondents.

Standard Deviation, sd=√

Where; xi the weight that assigned to i th option. the mean value. n the total number of

respondents.

Skewness, g =

Where; the number of respondents who answer the th option. the weight that

assigned to th option. the mean value. the standard deviation. the total number of

respondents.

Relative Importance Index, RII =

Where; W the weight given to each factor by the respondents (ranging from 1 to 5).

A the highest weight (i.e. 5 in this case). N the total number of respondents.

All the statistical analysis data for Q.C. Factors are presented in Table-5:



Table 5 Quality Control Related Factors

No. 1-Design Related Factors Mean sd Sk RII

Ra

nk

1 Design is keeping pace with the modern style of

designs. 2.08 0.53 0.08 41.63 4

2 Design takes in to consideration the environmental and

geographical attitude for the project site. 2.11 0.59 -0.03 42.17 3

3 Designs are usually line and correspond with the

environmentally friendly design. 2.16 0.61 -0.11 43.26 2

4 Precise and accurate details are available for designs. 2.18 0.61 -0.10 43.59 1

5 Designs match and correspond to the engineering

codes. 1.96 0.58 0.00 39.13 7

6 Client party usually intervenes in designs. 1.95 0.57 -0.01 39.02 8

7 Design modifications are followed-up by the designer. 2.04 0.54 0.03 40.76 5

8 Designs correspond to various engineering disciplines

(civil, architecture, electrical and mechanical). 2.02 0.59 0.00 40.33 6

Total Design Related Factors 2.06 0.31 -0.87 41.24

No. 2-Time Related Factors Mean sd Sk RII Ra

nk

1 Project duration could be accurately and thoughtfully

determined. 3.26 1.00 -0.11 65.22 8

2 There is an enough required time for site mobilization. 3.35 0.85 -0.58 66.96 6

3 There are no delays in getting approval for work

implementation by the concerned authorities. 3.60 0.96 -0.69 72.07 3

4 The work is started after obtaining the licenses and

approvals directly. 3.58 0.85 -0.51 71.52 4

5

The work performance that required for work

completion is appropriate with the capacity of available

staff.

3.50 1.01 -0.52 70.00 5

6 Resources are available as planned and by the time of

the project plan. 3.27 0.94 -0.37 65.43 7

7

The time required for repair errors, defects and

implementation of change orders is estimated

accurately.

3.15 1.00 -0.18 63.04 10

8 The client not intervenes in determining the overall

project duration. 3.19 1.02 0.11 63.80 9

9

The contractor could perform more than one project in

the same time, which leads to delay the

accomplishment.

3.71 0.94 -0.65 74.13 1

10 There are delays in the completion of the project due to

weather conditions. 3.64 0.84 -0.71 72.72 2

Total Time Related Factors 3.42 0.50 -0.28 68.49

No. 3-Cost Related Factors Mean

sd Sk

RII Ra

nk

1 There is a realistic cost estimation of the project. 2.15 0.57 0.01 42.93 2

2 There is enough experience during bid pricing. 2.11 0.58 -0.02 42.28 3

3 The bid price is affected as a result of competition

between contractors. 1.90 0.59 0.02 37.93 7

4

There are laws and regulations that define and

determine the mechanism of payments between the

contractor and the owner.

1.93 0.56 -0.02 38.70 6

5 There are financial incentives aimed to improving the

quality of the work. 2.07 0.59 -0.02 41.41 5

6 There is an increase in the project cost resulting from

increasing the administrative expenses and overtime. 2.11 0.58 -0.02 42.28 4

7 There is an increase in the project cost due to the cost

of change orders and re-implementation of some work. 1.83 0.55 -0.09 36.52 9

8 There is an increase in the project cost resulting from 1.86 0.59 0.04 37.28 8



the increase in fuel prices, the prices of materials and

increasing the proportion of losses.

9 There is an increase in the project cost resulting from

accidents work compensation. 2.29 0.63 -0.33 45.76 1

Total Cost Related Factors 2.03 0.31 -0.57 40.57

No. 4-Team Work Related Factors Mean Sd Sk RII Ra

nk

1 Necessary technical skills are available for workers and

supervisors. 2.16 0.51 0.22 43.15 9

2 The staffs possess spirit teamwork. 2.29 0.59 -0.19 45.87 2

3 There is enough knowledge for staff related to

requirements and work specifications. 2.26 0.55 0.04 45.22 4

4 The project manager has good leadership skills. 2.20 0.59 -0.08 44.02 7

5 The relationship between the staff and project manager

is based on cooperation and respect. 2.23 0.60 -0.13 44.67 5

6 The spirit of competition and belonging among

employees is increased. 2.30 0.60 -0.22 46.09 1

7 There is a specified fixed staff for the project. 2.12 0.54 0.09 42.39 10

8 There is an exact determine for the job description for

staff (the tasks entrusted to him). 2.18 0.63 -0.16 43.70 8

9

There is an exchange of experiences and technical

executive with the institutions of friction and take

advantage of other experiences.

2.29 0.63 -0.33 45.76 3

10 Human resources are trained with new skills necessary

for the project. 2.23 0.60 -0.16 44.67 6

Total Team Worker Related Factors 2.23 0.34 -0.20 44.55

No. 5-Communications and Contact Related Factors Mean Sd Sk RII Ra

nk

1

There is sufficient communication between all project

parties (the owner, contractor, designer) during the

various project phases.

3.65 0.89 -0.82 72.93 1

2 There is streamline to deliver information between all

project parties. 3.29 0.89 -0.57 65.87 3

3 There is an urge to use the latest communication

systems and techniques. 3.18 0.98 -0.38 63.70 4

4

All reports and orders are transferred by modern

techniques to ensure speed and accuracy instead of

paper correspondence.

3.05 1.09 -0.13 61.09 5

5

All correspondence and communications among the

project

Parties are documented.

3.64 0.93 -0.81 72.72 2

Total Communications & Contact Related Factors 3.36 0.74 -0.61 67.26

No. 6-Occupational and Safety Related Factors Mean Sd Sk RII Ra

nk

1

There is an interest in projects' conditions and

providing required occupational safety tools for

workers.

2.98 1.01 -0.22 59.57 4

2 Safety and security procedures are used in the project. 2.96 0.97 -0.14 59.24 5

3 There is an appropriate safety standard for the work

environment. 3.05 0.90 -0.05 60.98 3

4 Climatic conditions are taken into account within the

projects' environment. 3.20 0.88 -0.20 63.91 1

5 Health insurance against accidents at work for all

employees is available. 3.18 1.01 -0.31 63.70 2

6 There are previous recorded statistical rates related to

accidents in the projects. 2.75 0.93 0.15 55.00 6

Total Occupational & Safety Related Factors 3.02 0.79 -0.01 60.40

No. 7-Documents and Information Availability Related

Factors Mean Sd Sk RII

Ra

nk



1 Contract documents are characterized with a high

degree of clarity. 3.45 0.89 -0.59 69.02 4

2 There is detailed documentation for specifications,

quantities and drawings. 3.73 0.89 -0.96 74.57 1

3 There is detailed documentation of legislation and

laws, contracts and agreements. 3.71 0.89 -0.98 74.24 2

4 Sufficient information for suppliers and subcontractors

are available. 3.23 0.87 -0.21 64.57 6

5 There is an obvious track (sequence) and a clear

workflow of information within the project. 3.29 0.82 -0.41 65.87 5

6 There is a possibility to reach the required information,

analyze and modify them directly. 3.21 0.86 -0.32 64.24 7

7 All work stages and work permits documentation is

available. 3.56 0.85 -0.83 71.20 3

Total Documents and Information Availability

Related Factors 3.45 0.67 -0.60 69.10

No. 8-Monitoring Related Factors Mean Sd Sk RII Ra

nk

1 There is an efficient and experience staff with the

ability to monitor the work in all its stages. 2.20 0.59 -0.06 43.91 9

2 There is an appropriate level of quality control

measures. 2.27 0.57 -0.07 45.33 4

3 Committees are formed to follow up the necessary

quality policies. 2.29 0.63 -0.30 45.76 2

4 A comprehensive system of quality at the local level is

formulated. 2.29 0.58 -0.13 45.76 3

5 Reform agencies staff of test department and the

adoption of qualified laboratories. 2.27 0.56 -0.04 45.43 5

6

There is a commitment to standards and agreed terms

and requirements of the Global System for quality

(ISO).

2.26 0.60 -0.17 45.22 6

7 There is a precise auditing on the engineering bureaus

by Jordanian engineering association. 2.21 0.63 -0.19 44.13 8

8 The faults and problems are reviewed then appropriate

solutions are developed. 2.24 0.59 -0.12 44.89 7

9 Raw materials that used in the project have a high

quality. 2.31 0.63 -0.36 46.20 1

Total Monitoring Related Factors 2.26 0.35 -0.38 45.18

No. 9-Administrative Related Factors Mean Sd Sk RII Ra

nk

1 An experienced supervision cadre that represents the

owner and designer of the project is existed. 2.18 0.57 -0.01 43.70 4

2

Powers and Permissions are allowed to the project

managers and enable them to make the necessary

technical decisions.

2.20 0.59 -0.08 44.02 3

3 Consultants are training to ensure the accuracy of the

engineering documents. 2.16 0.59 -0.05 43.26 5

4 A cost flow system is available to observe the conduct

of the project costs. 2.35 0.60 -0.33 47.07 1

5 Non-classified Contractors are adopted (or inadequate

rating). 2.16 0.59 -0.05 43.26 6

6 The mechanism of selection the contractors and

suppliers is improved 2.34 0.62 -0.37 46.85 2

Total Administrative related quality control 2.23 0.39 -0.23 44.69

The classifications for mean values in the upcoming Tables will be based on the following

criteria as suggested by researcher as shown in Table-6:



Table 6 Mean values classification

Weak Moderate High

Mean Value < 3 3 ≤ Mean Value ≤ 4 Mean Value <4

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Based on the analysis data shown in Table-5 we discuss the results. First the discussions of

the factors effecting the quality control of construction projects in Jordan is carried out.

Second we discuss the results obtained by analyzing the factors effects the engineering

defects.

5.1. Data Analysis for All Quality Control Related Factors

The results in Table-5 shows that the overall mean value for design related factor is (weak)

and all values for the whole questions are considered (weak) due to the lack of commitment to

keep pace with the modern style of designs, not to take into consideration the environmental

and geographical attitude for the project site, inaccurate design details, non-compliance of

design to the engineering codes, lack of follow up the designers to design modifications, the

increasing of client's intervention in design proces and non-corresponding designs with

various engineering disciplines. This proves that there is a low importance of this factor as

addressed by the study sample.

The overall mean value for cost related factor is (weak) and all values for the whole sub

factors are considered (weak) too, that is due to the lack of realistic cost estimation of the

project, lack of sufficient experience during bid pricing, bid price is affected as a result of

competition between contractors. The absence of laws and regulations that define and

determine the mechanism of payments between the contractor and the owner, and an increase

in the project cost resulting from increasing the administrative expenses, increasing fuel

prices, increasing the prices of materials and increasing the proportion of losses. In general,

all data reflect that there was a low attention and implementation of cost factor.

The overall mean value for team work factor is (weak) and all values for the whole sub

factors are considered as (weak) too, that is because of poor technical skills for workers and

supervisors, lack of commitment to the spirit of team work, poor managers leadership, no

fixed staff for the project, insufficient recognition for staff related to requirements and work

specifications, insufficient exchange of experiences and technical executive with the

institutions of friction and take advantage of other experiences. In general, all data reflect that

there was a low interest of team work factor.

The overall mean value for monitoring factor is (weak), and all values for the whole sub

factors are considered as (weak) too, that is due to insufficient experience staff to monitor the

work in all project stages, low quality of raw materials that used in the project and inaccurate

auditing on the engineering bureaus by Jordanian Engineering Association. In general, all data

reflect that there was (weak)interest of monitoring factor.

The overall mean value for administrative factor is (weak) and all values for the whole sub

factors are considered as (weak) too, that is because of poor mechanism of selection the

contractors and suppliers and using non-classified contractors.

According to Table-5, the overall mean values for time, communications, safety and

documents and information factors are (moderate). This prove that there is a

(moderate)attention and implementation of these factors as addressed by the study samples.



The values of mean and standard deviation for all quality control factors in construction

projects in Jordan can be designated. The documents and information availability related

factors was the most addressed factor as it was ranked the first by a mean of (3.45) while the

cost was the lowest factor as its mean was the least (2.03). The total degree for quality

control’s factors mean becomes in a moderate degree as its mean was (2.67). It's noted that all

the skewness values provided in the Table ranged between (-1 and +1) consequently

suggesting a semi normal distribution of the data representing the quality control.

Figure 1 RII Values for All Quality Control Factors

The RII values are represented in Figure-1, the ranking procedure was completed

according to RII values as shown. It is clear to us that documentation availability factor has

the first rank with (69.1); followed by time, communication, safety, team work, monitoring

and design, while cost factor has the last rank with (40.75).

Figure 2 Mean Values Representation for All Quality Control Related Factor

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

DesignFactor

TimeFactor

CostFactor

TeamFactor

Cumm.Factor

SafetyFactor

Docum.Factor

Monit.Factor

Admin.Factor

RII values 41.24 68.49 40.57 44.55 67.26 60.4 69.1 45.18 44.69

RII

Val

ue

s %

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

DesignFactors

TimeFactors

CostRelatedFactors

TeamWork

Factors

Comm. &ContactFactors

SafetyFactors

Doc. &Inf.

Factors

Monit.Factors

Admin.Factors

Me

an V

alu

e



Time and documents & information availability factors have a (moderate) mean

classification, as shown in Figure-2, so there was a good interest and application in these

factors .While design, cost, team work, monitoring and administrative factors have (weak)

mean value, so we can conclude that there was a shortage in paying more attention and

importance to these five main factors, and we can notice that the mean values for safety and

communication are (moderate). The overall application of the previous nine main factors is

classified as (moderate).

5.2. Data Analysis for All Engineering Defects

The values for mean, standard deviation, skewness (Sk.) and relative importance index for all

existing engineering defects are presented in Table-7.

Table 7 Values of Mean, Standard Deviation, Sk. And RII for Existing Engineering Defects

No. Engineering Defects Mean Sd Sk RII Rank

1 There are defects resulting from the poor

engineering designs. 3.67 0.70 0.55 73.48 5

2 That there are defects resulting from the

time factor. 2.33 0.59 -0.22 46.63 8

3 There are defects resulting from the cost

factor. 3.83 0.63 0.15 76.63 1

4 There are defects resulting from the work

staff. 3.72 0.68 0.42 74.35 3

5

That there are defects resulting from the

Communication between the parties of the

project.

2.75 0.94 -0.11 55.00 6

6 There are defects resulting from the

occupational safety factors. 2.45 0.99 0.36 49.02 7

7 There are defects resulting from

documents and information factors. 2.18 0.68 -0.25 43.70 9

8

There are defects resulting from the

Follow-up and Inspection factors

(Monitoring).

3.79 0.70 0.32 75.76 2

9 There are defects resulting from

Administrative Factors. 3.70 0.74 0.56 73.91 4

Total Engineering Defects 3.16 0.27 0.26 63.16

The cost related defects were the most type of defects addressed as it has the first rank

with a mean of (3.83) while the documents and information availability related defects were

the lowest factor as its mean was (2.18). The total degree for quality control’s factors mean

becomes in a moderate degree as its mean was (3.16). It is noted that all the skewness values

provided in the Table ranged between (-1 and +1) consequently suggesting a semi normal

distribution of the data representing the quality control.

The RII values are represented in Figure-3, the ranking procedure was completed

according to RII values as shown. We can observe that the cost related defects have the first

rank with (76.63), while the documents and information availability related defects have the

last rank with (43.7).



Figure 3 RII Values for All Engineering Defects

From Figure-4, which shows the realistic state for the related factors that lead for

engineering defects that resulted due to poor quality control, we can conclude that engineering

defects related due to design, cost, team work, monitoring and administrative factors have the

(moderate) classification, while the engineering defects that resulted from time,

communication & contact factors, safety and documents & information availability have

(weak) existence in the construction field in Jordan. The overall classification for defects that

related from all factors is (moderate) classification.

Figure 4 Mean Values Representation for All Existing Engineering Defects

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

DesignDefects

TimeDefects

CostDefects

TeamDefects

Cumm.Defects

SafetyDefects

Docum.Defects

Monit.Defects

Admin.Defects

RII values 73.48 46.63 76.63 74.35 55 49.02 43.7 75.76 73.91

RII

Val

ue

s %



6. CONCLUSIONS

The paper analyzed the quality control applications and engineering defects in Jordanian

construction projects. The conclusions drawn are:

1- It is observed that the quality control application has a weak classification, and its state did

not raise to the required level because of the lack of interest in specified quality control

factors that have a weak attention. While the overall engineering defects was ranked as

moderate.

2- The quality control related factors classified weak are design, cost, team work, monitoring

and administrative. Factors rated moderate are time, documents & information availability,

safety and cummunication.

3- The realted factors that lead for engineering defects and given a moderate rate of existence

in the construction field are the design,cost ,team work,monitoring and adminstrative.

Factores classified having weak effects are the time, cummunication & contact, safety and

documents.

Finally, the authors recommend that increasing the interest in the quality control as a

concept for all involved parties in the construction process (client, designer, and contractor).

The top management should be committed and adopt the improvement of supervision's

qualifications and performance. All contact and communication carried out between all

project parties must be done by using the modern technical ways to ensure speed, accuracy

and flexibility.

REFERENCES

[1] Al-Najjar A.J. Quality Control for Clarifying Engineering Defects in Construction

Projects in Jordan. MSc. Thesis, Isra University, Amman, Jordan; 2013.

[2] Al-Hazim N, AbuSalem Z & Ahmad H. Delay and Cost Overrun in Infrastructure Projects

in Jordan. 7th Int. Conference on Engineering Project and Production Management 2017;

Procedia Eng. 182: 18 – 24.

[3] Aziz R.F. Factors causing cost variation for constructing wastewater projects in Egypt.

Alexandria Engineering J. 2012; Volume 52, Issue 1: 51–66.

[4] Alhomidan A. Factors Affecting Cost Overrun in Road Construction Projects in Saudi

Arabia. International J. of Civil & Environmental Engineering 2013. Civil Engineering

Department, Hail University KSA; Vol. 13 No. 3.

[5] Marzouk M.M & El-Rasas T.I. Analyzing delay causes in Egyptian construction projects.

Cairo University, J. of Advanced Research 2014; 5: 49–55.

[6] Gebrehiwet T & Luo H. Analysis of Delay Impact on Construction Project Based on RII

and Correlation Coefficient: Empirical Study. Creative Construction Conference 2017;

Primosten, Croati, Procedia Eng. 196: 366 – 374.

[7] Gluszak M & Lesniak A. Construction Delays in Client’s Opinion – Multivariate

Statistical Analysis. Creative Construction Conference 2015; Procedia Eng. 123: 182 –

189.

[8] Elawia G, Algahtanyb M & Kashiwagic D. Owners’ Perspective of Factors Contributing

to Project Delay: case studies of road and bridge projects in Saudi Arabia. International

Conference on Sustainable Design, Engineering and Construction 2016; Procedia Eng.

145: 1402 – 1409.

[9] Kikwasi G.J. Causes and effects of delays and disruptions in construction projects in

Tanzania. Australasian J. of Construction Economics and Building 2012; Vol.1, No.2: 52-

59.



[10] Sambasivan M & Soon Y.W Causes and Effects of Daly in Malaysian Construction

Industry. International J. of Project Management 2007; 25: 517-526.

[11] Shobana K.S & Ambika D. Evaluation of Factors Affecting Quality in Construction

Projects. Int. J. of Innovative Research in Science Engineering and Technology 2016; Vol.

5, Issue 3: 3526-3529.

[12] Al-Adhmawi F.I. & Al-Ani R. Implementation of Quality Management Concepts in

Managing Engineering Project Site. Jordan. Journal of Civil Engineering 2011; Volume 5,

No.1: 89-106.

[13] Abu Shaban & Saleh Samir. Factors Affecting the Performance of Construction Projects

in the Gaza Strip. J. of Civil Engineering and Management 2008; Vol.15, Issue 3: 269–

280.

[14] Iyer K.C. & Jha K.N. Critical Factors Affecting Quality Performance in Construction

Projects. International J. of Project Management 2006; Vol. 17, No. 9: 1155–1170.

[15] Akhavan T., Mahyuddin R. & Abu Hassan A. Training motivation and teamwork

improvement: the case of construction firms School of Housing, Building and Planning.

African J. of Business Management 2011: Vol. 5, No.14: 5627-5636.

[16] Ali A.S. & Wen K.H. Building Defects: Possible Solution for Poor Construction

Workmanship. J. of Building Performance 2011; the Institution of Surveyors Malaysia,

Vol.2 Issue 1: P59.

[17] Jaffar N., Abdul Tharim A.H. & Shuib M.N. Factors of Conflict in Construction Industry,

A Literature Review. Procedia Engineering, 2nd International Building Control

Conference 2011; Vol. 20: 193 – 202.

[18] Israel G.D. Program Evaluation and Organizational Development, Institute of Food and

Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) 2009. Department of Agricultural Education and

Communication, and extension specialist, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611.

[19] George D. & Mallery P. SPSS for windows step by step, A sample Guide & Reference,

(Fourth Edition) 2003; Allyn & Bacon Publication, Canada, P231.

[20] MacMillan A., Preston D., Wolfe J. & Yu S. Basic statistics: mean, median, average,

standard deviation, z-scores, and p-value 2006; SCRIBD, P28.

[21] Iyer, K.C. & Jha, K.N. Factors Affecting Cost Performance, Evidence from Indian

Construction Projects. International J. of Project Management 2005; Vol. 23, Issue 4:

283–295.

[22] B. Madhavarao, K. Mahindra and SS. Asadi, A Critical Analysis of Material Management

Techniques in Construction Project, International Journal of Civil Engineering and

Technology, 9(4), 2018, pp. 826 – 835

[23] Thamilarasu V, Rajprasad J and Ram Prasanna Pavan T, A Case Study on Requirements

of Quality Workmanship in Construction Projects. International Journal of Civil

Engineering and Technology, 8(4), 2017, pp. 1061 – 1067.

[24] Aditya Varma K.V, Manideep T and SS. Asadi. A Critical Comparison of Quantity

Estimation for Gated Community Construction Project Using Traditional Method Vs Plan

Swift Software: A Case Study. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology,

7(6), 2016, pp. 707 – 713.