A cartography of delay risks in the Australian construction industry: impact, correlations and timing

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this research is to identify the most impactful delay risks in Australian construction projects, including the associations amongst those risks as well as the project phases in which they are most likely present. The correlation between project and organisational characteristics with the impact of delay risks was also studied.

Design/methodology/approach

A questionnaire survey was used to collect data from 118 delayed construction projects in Australia. Data were analysed to rank the most impactful delay risks, their correlation to project and organisational characteristics and project phases where those risks are likely to emerge. Association rule learning was used to capture associations between the delay risks.

Findings

The top five most impactful delay risks in Australia were changes by the owner, slow decisions by the owner, preparation and approval of design drawings, underestimation of project complexity and unrealistic duration imposed to the project, respectively. There is a set of delay risks that are mutually associated with project complexity. In addition, while delay risks associated with resources most likely arise in the execution phase, stakeholder and process-related risks are more smoothly distributed along all the project phases.

Originality/value

This research for the first time investigated the impact of delay risks, associations amongst them and project phases in which they are likely to happen in the Australian context. Also, this research for the first time sheds light on the project phases for the individual project delay risks which aids the project managers to understand where to focus on during each phase of the project.

Citation

Derakhshanfar, H., Ochoa, J.J., Kirytopoulos, K., Mayer, W. and Langston, C. (2021), "A cartography of delay risks in the Australian construction industry: impact, correlations and timing", Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 1952-1978. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-04-2020-0230