Civil Engineering Dimension, Vol. 5, No.

1, 1–6, March 2003

ISSN 1410-9530

ON REPRESENTING FACTORS INFLUENCING TIME

PERFORMANCE OF SHOP-HOUSE CONSTRUCTIONS IN
SURABAYA

Andi
Lecturer, Construction Management Post-Graduate Program - Petra Christian University

Susandi, Hendra Wijaya

Alumni, Department of Civil and Planning Engineering - Petra Christian University

ABSTRACT

Some shop-houses were built late and others are on time, or faster than the schedule that had been
planned. The questions are how it could happen and what kind of factors that made it happened.
This research has an objective to investigate time performance of shop-house constructions in
Surabaya by representing factors that influence it. It first assembles potential influencing factors
through literature review, and second, conducts an empirical study by collecting data from finished
thirty-two shop-house projects throughout the city. Results of analyses using one-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) indicate eight factors to be statistically significant influencing time performance.
They are construction design change, schedule of work that will be done, workers discipline, material
availability, owner’s payment, quality control, workers availability, and material delivery. The paper
discusses the factors and proposes possible solutions to improve time performance.

Keywords: time performance, influencing factors, shop house, anova.

INTRODUCTION which the developer or contractor should pay

some amount of money (penalty) to the owner.
Due to the economic crisis starting in 1997 In addition, a developer or contractor may lose
many big construction projects were either its credibility and reputation and ultimately lose
stopped or cancelled in Indonesia. The impacts its customers (owners).
of the crisis can also be found in Surabaya as
Yet in reality some shop-houses were finished
the second biggest city in the nation. Some high-
behind schedule and others were on time or
rise building constructions were stopped and
ahead of schedule. The question is how it could
very rare can we see construction of new
happen? Why some shop-houses could have
buildings in the city. Instead, recently many worse, good, or better time performance? This
developers are more interested to invest their paper seeks to investigate the time performance
money to build shop-houses (ruko) in strategic of shop-house constructions by representing
area. The construction of this kind of building factors that influence it. In the following
needs only short-time period compared to those sections, the paper first provides a brief
of high-rise buildings. This is because the owner overview of the definition of time performance
of the shop-house wants to use the building as and related literature to assemble factors that
soon as possible for their business benefit. In may influence it. Next, a methodology used to
Short, the faster the construction period the compare performance of construction time is
better will be for the owner. Here, developers or introduced. Results, practical applications and
individual contractors, who provide the shop- suggestions for further research are given at the
houses, are required to have a good time end.
management for the construction. Late delivery
of the building, as compared to the planning in
contract agreement, may result in claim, in REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Construction time is one key element of
Note: Discussion is expected before June, 1 st 2003. The performance indicators of a construction project.
proper discussion will be published in “Dimensi Teknik In this paper time performance (TP) is defined
Sipil” volume 5 number 2 September 2003.

Civil Engineering Dimension

ISSN 1410-9530 print © 2007 Thomson GaleTM 7
http://puslit.petra.ac.id/journals/civil
 Andi, et al. / Factors Influencing Time Performance of Shop-House Constructions / CED, Vol. 5, No. 1, 7–13, March 2003

as comparison between actual time (AT) and comparisons between individual time perfor-
planning time (PT) to finish a project. TP > 1 mances, is thus needed. The next section will
indicates bad time performance, which means describe the methodology.
delay happened in the project. Meanwhile TP =
1 or TP < 1 indicates good or better time
performance, in which the project is finished on RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
time or faster than planned, respectively. The
scope of time performance is limited during Questionnaire Development and Distribu-
construction phase only, where the contractor is tion
the main party who is responsible for it. It is
assumed also that the assignment of PT is The study used an empirical study, where data
correct. required for analysis were based on measure-
ments from the projects under investigation
Several literatures, mostly discussing about [11]. Questionnaire survey was used to collect
construction time planning and duration (such the data about the factors in each shop-house
as delays), were gathered to assemble factors project. The projects were limited to those,
that were potential to influence construction which had been finished since 1997 in
time performance [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. The factors Surabaya. The considerations were that: 1) the
were grouped into seven main categories. They respondent who answered the questionnaire
were labors, materials, equipments, site would still remember the conditions in his/her
characteristics, managerial, financial, and other project, and 2) the situations in the city, such as
factors. In addition, physical factors of shop- economic condition, relatively did not change
houses were also included. Figure 1 shows the much. Since the consideration in this paper was
complete list of the factors used in the study. As time performance during construction phase,
seen, totally thirty-seven factors were included. contractors were targeted as respondent.
The questionnaire had two major sections. First
Previous researches in related area [9,10] have section contained open questions, which cover
shown some interesting findings about factors general information about the project and
that caused delays in building projects in respondent, questions about the three physical
Surabaya. Their methodology and findings, factors, and planning and actual construction
however, cannot answer the question of why time duration. Second section of the question-
some projects were built faster than others, as naire asked the respondent to consider the
previously stated. A methodology, which enables condition of the remaining thirty-four factors

Figure 1. Potential Factors Influencing Time Performance of Shop-Houses Constructions

8
 Andi, et al. / Factors Influencing Time Performance of Shop-House Constructions / CED, Vol. 5, No. 1, 7–13, March 2003

(Fig 1) in his/her project using a five point scale

as follous.
Examples:
1) Design changes
Often 1 2 3 4 5 Never
2) Discipline of labors
No discipline 1 2 3 4 5 Very high
discipline

The draft of the questionnaire was written in

Indonesian and was first distributed to five
contractors for pilot study. There was no
required change to the draft from the study; so Figure 2. Plot of Measurement Scale Versus Time
the questionnaire was ready for distribution. Performance
Detail of the questionnaire can be found in [12].
Next, a one-way ANOVA test, at a significance
Methods of Analyses level, α = 5%, was performed to each factor. One-
way ANOVA tests differences in a single
Two analyses methods were used in the study. interval dependent variable among two, three,
They were descriptive statistics and one-way or more groups formed by the categories of a
ANOVA tests. The latter will be discussed in the single categorical independent variable [13].
next paragraph. The descriptive statistics This design deals with one independent variable
provided general information such as averages, (which in this study is represented by the
proportions, and frequency counts, all of which influencing factors or Factor X in Fig 2) and one
related the trend or distribution of opinions on dependent variable (represented by time perfor-
the questions. These statistics were reviewed mance). It tests whether the groups formed by
collectively, or classified by variables. The the categories of the independent variable
function of the variables was to group the (indicated by dotted lines in Fig 2) seem similar
respondents based on some characteristics and (specifically that they have the same pattern of
enable their responses to be compared. An dispersion as measured by comparing estimates
example of the variables was construction time of group variances). If the groups seem different,
performance. For the purpose of analysis then it is concluded that the independent
described in the next paragraph, the surveyed variable has an effect on the dependent. For
projects were grouped based on some scales further discussions of the test, readers can
related to the questions of physical factors. For consult many statistics books, e.g. [14].
examples, the shop-house projects were grouped
as small, medium or large scale based on the Each test had a null hypothesis (H0) that
size area or the number of units. construction time performance IS NOT signi-
ficantly influenced by the factor X; and an
One-way ANOVA Tests to Represent Fac- alternative hypothesis (H1) that construction
tors Influencing Time Performance time performance IS significantly influenced by
the factor X. The decision rule is that reject H0 if
In order to represent factors influencing con-
the significance level (p-value) of the test is
struction time performance, a new methodology
equal to or less than the preassigned
proposed by Walker [2] was utilized. The
significance level (that is at 5%), and alter-
procedures of the analysis are as follow. First,
natively accept H0 if the p-value is higher than
data of each factor collected from each indivi-
the significance level [14]. In total, thirty-seven
dual project was plotted against its respective
one-way ANOVA tests would be needed to
time performance. Figure 2 illustrates the
investigate which factors were significant in
process on a factor, say, X. Each dot in the
influencing time performance. To perform the
figure represents a condition in a specific shop-
tests, SPSS statistical program version 10.0 was
house project. Total number of dots would be the
used.
same as total number of projects (respondents).

9
 Andi, et al. / Factors Influencing Time Performance of Shop-House Constructions / CED, Vol. 5, No. 1, 7–13, March 2003

RESULTS OF ANALYSES
General Information
From total targeted forty-five projects
(respondents), only thirty-two projects were
obtained (achieving 71% rate of return). The size
of projects were between 500 m2 to 5000 m2. For
the purpose of ANOVA analysis, the projects
were categorized as small (with area less than
1500 m2), medium (area between 1500 to 3000 Figure 5. Percentages of Time Delay
m2), and large (area more than 3000 m2). Figure
3 shows the proportion of the categories. Factors Influencing Time Performance

Results from one-way ANOVA tests indicate

eight factors to be significant, at α = 5%,
>3000 5 influencing time performance. They are listed in
Area Table 1. Meanwhile, factors not significantly
1500-3000 14
(m )
2 influencing time performance are shown in
<1500 13 Table 2.
Table 1. Factors Significantly Influencing Con-
0 5 10 15
struction Time Performance (in rank
order)
Number of Projects
NO CATEGORY FACTORS p-VALUE
1 Managerial Design changes 0.013
2 Managerial Scheduling of works to be done 0.019
Figure 3. Size of Shop-Houses Projects 3 Labor Discipline of labors 0.021
4 Material Material availability 0.027
5 Financial Payment from owner 0.030
The bigger the area of the project the more 6 Managerial Quality control of works 0.034
number of units were there. Small projects 7 Labor Labor availability 0.042
8 Material Material delivery 0.046
commonly had less than ten units shop-houses,
whereas medium and large projects commonly Table 2. Factors NOT Significantly Influencing
had between ten to twenty and more than Construction Time Performance (in
twenty units, respectively. Moreover, most of rank order)
the projects (28 projects) were a three-stories NO CATEGORY FACTORS p-VALUE
shop-house. 1 Site Construction access 0.057
2 Equipment Equipment availability 0.089
3 Managerial Arrangement of site layout 0.095
Regarding to the time performance, about 60% 4 Labor Labor skills 0.129
of the surveyed projects had bad time 5 Managerial Communication between contractor 0.147
and owner
performance (delay) and only 15% of them were 6 Others Economic condition 0.170
finished ahead of the planned schedule. Figure 4 7 Equipment Equipment quality 0.199
details the proportions of construction time 8 Labor Communication between labor and 0.200
super ordinate
performance of the projects. 9 Labor Replacement of new labors 0.203
10 Physical Number of stories 0.232
11 Others Rain intensity 0.282
12 Managerial Experiences of site manager 0.290
13 Managerial Communication between consultant 0.347
and contractor
14 Site Surface and subsurface conditions 0.372
15 Managerial Material & equipment delivery 0.378
schedule
16 Labor Labor motivation 0.383
17 Site Material storage area 0.387
18 Others Accident 0.425
Figure 4. Distributions of Time Performance for Shop- 19 Site Location of project 0.435
20 Managerial Supervisions 0.512
Houses Constructions 21 Labor Labor absenteeism 0.516
22 Managerial Material quality 0.552
Six projects (32%) were found delayed equal to 23 Site Requirements for working space 0.642
or more than 20% of the planning time. 24 Site Physical characteristics of building 0.839
around the site
Information about other delayed projects can be 25 Site Perceptions of neighbors 0.881
observed in Figure 5. 26 Financial Material prices 0.885
27 Managerial Material needs estimation 0.897
28 Physical Size area 0.943
29 Physical Number of units shop-houses 0.983

10
 Andi, et al. / Factors Influencing Time Performance of Shop-House Constructions / CED, Vol. 5, No. 1, 7–13, March 2003

DISCUSSIONS OF SIGNIFICANT result in uncoordinated construction works,

INFLUENCING FACTORS especially if there are several or many contrac-
tors at the same location. Many problems
“Design changes” were found to be the most because of this factor, such as stoppages,
significant factor influencing time performance waiting, and moving from one work (location) to
of shop-houses constructions in Surabaya. other work, have been shown to severely impact
Results from other researches have shown that the worker motivation and productivity [22].
this factor is one major source of construction Second reason is lack of understanding and
claims [15] and has a detrimental effect on time knowledge by management regarding to project
performance [9,10,16]. It is also recognized as planning and scheduling [21].
one of the most critical construction risks in
several countries, including in Indonesia The next most important factor, “discipline of
[17,18,19]. Kaming [6] has shown that design labors,” is also very related to labor productivity.
changes were the most important causes of Here contractors, who want to have a better
rework, which lead to poor productivity and time performance, should consider ways to
ultimately impact construction time perfor- enhance the disciplines. Better wages, close
mance. Design changes during construction can supervisions, and other motivational programs
be caused by errors and mistakes, incom- are some examples. Santoso [19] has
recommended supervision (an insignificant
pleteness, ambiguities, conflicts, or impractica-
factor) as an important weapon to prevent the
lities found in the provided design documents. It
inherent problems of Indonesian labors’
can also occur due to changes of the owner’s
indiscipline.
requirement [20]. Though designs of shop-
houses projects are commonly not as complex as
“Material availability,” at the right time and
those of high-rise buildings, result of this study specified quality, is a must for productive
suggests that developers or contractors should construction works. Thus, contractors should
give special attention to this factor. It is not only exercise a good material management system.
will influence the time but also other project This should involve both suppliers, to
performances, such as cost or quality. In order appropriately deliver the materials when
to anticipate the problems, owners or developers needed (which is also a significant factor,
should give clear requirements about the ranked eight in the list), and also the
designs to the consultants. The consultants then contractors to have a sound schedule for the
should review the designs for the deliveries (an insignificant factor) and to select
aforementioned aspects before delivering them and manage their suppliers. Having several
to the contractors. For complex projects, reliable material suppliers is one example the
contractors’ involvement during planning and contractor may do to avoid occurrences of the
design is recommended. Such valuable inputs problem. Other important points to ensure the
may be obtained from them are constructability availability of material are sufficient on-site
aspects or innovative methods of works, which transportation and proper material storage.
may result in faster or more economical projects.
“What you pay is what you get” may be a
The second most significant factor is “scheduling suitable truism to explain why the factor
of construction works.” Without proper planning “payment from owner” is significant influencing
and time scheduling, it is very easy for a project, time performance. The factor will especially play
either small or large, to slip from its intended a pivotal position when a limited-capital
time duration. Study to several high-rise contractor is employed in a project. Without
buildings in Surabaya [21] discovered that sufficient and timely payment from the owner
improper planning and scheduling was the most (developer), the contractor may not be able to
adverse factor affecting construction produc- afford essential resources (i.e. materials, labors
tivity. The finding of the current study thus and equipments) needed by the project. For a
confirms it. The more proper the schedule, the better management of this factor, the role of
better the productivity of the labor and owner is called on. Both contractor and owner
should set and agree on a suitable payment
accordingly the better the time performance of
system. Readers may consult [23,24] for good
the project will be. It is argued that many shop-
discussions of the payment system.
houses contractors pay little attention to this
factor due to several reasons. First reason is the
Contractors should have a good and practical
scale of the shop-houses constructions. They
“quality control” program during execution of
might think that there was no need to make a construction works. People tend to misunder-
proper plan or schedule. This, however, may

11
 Andi, et al. / Factors Influencing Time Performance of Shop-House Constructions / CED, Vol. 5, No. 1, 7–13, March 2003

stand that good quality will require more time schedule. Benchmark measures, using thirty-
to finish the work. On the contrary, the quality seven potential factors, were assembled to
can speed up the construction periods, by compare time performance of thirty-two finished
reducing reworks due to poor quality. Reworks shop-houses projects. The analytical methodo-
are also regarded as major problems causing low logy, by way of one-way ANOVA tests, found
productivity [6,22]. Poor or low quality can eight factors to be significant influencing the
happen because of using unspecified material or time performance. They were (in rank order)
wrong executions of work. Quality control of construction design change, schedule of work
works is intended to prevent these problems to that will be done, workers discipline, material
occur. availability, owner’s payment, quality control,
workers availability, and material delivery. On
With the current economic condition, it can be the other hand, physical factors of the projects
predicted that there are abundant workers were identified as having no significant
available in the market. Interestingly, “labor influence upon the time performance.
availability” was ranked as a significant factor.
The problem here maybe is not about the It is interesting to see that most of the
unavailability of worker, but whether the significant factors are under the contractor’s
workers are available when needed. Labor management control. In other words, the
absenteeism has been listed as one most contractors are indeed able to take actions to the
important problem leading to poor productivity factors before becoming a problem. The results
in Indonesia [6]. There are several and discussions are thus targeted to equip the
circumstances that may cause this problem. One management team with a valuable means in
typical example is to find out many workers achieving faster completion of shop-houses
were absent on Monday. This endemic problem projects. More importantly, the presented
is more prevalent where the workers are from methodology furnishes a benchmarking tool
the same city as the projects (Surabaya in this against best practice in time performance. It
paper). Some contractors mentioned that it was allows contractors to gauge the gap in
better to have workers from other cities or rural performance and to set targets aimed at closing
areas. It is because they did not want to spend the gap and eventually achieving superiority.
money for transportation. Other circumstances
tending to coin the problem are (religious) This paper has a limitation, however. It does not
holidays, such as Idul Fitri, and planting and investigate the interrelationships among the
harvest seasons. There is no way, however, for influencing factors. This will be particularly
any contractors to eliminate these constraints. very important to represent the positions of the
Instead, the contractor should take them into insignificant factors. Hypothetically, an
account in the planning time by allocating insignificant factor may influence the time
contingencies. performance indirectly by having strong
interrelationships with the significant factors.
The last significant factor is “material delivery.” This thus opens an opportunity for further
This factor has been partly discussed with the researchers to study them. In addition, the
fourth significant factor. Several other related methodology can be used for formulating
factors that may cause difficulties in material benchmark measures to investigate other
delivery are project location (in remote or project performances, such as cost, quality, or
densely populated areas), availability of access safety performances. A more detail research on
and delivery facilities (e.g., roads and the significant factors found in this study is also
transporting vehicles), and contractor’s payment encouraged. Finally, the collection of factors
to the material suppliers. In short, the influencing time performance in this paper is far
contractors should consider all these factors from complete. There are still many other
when they plan the project. factors not considered here; thus they need to be
explored more.

CONCLUSION AND FURTHER

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Six out of ten shop-houses projects in Surabaya 1. Nkado, R.N., Construction Time Informa-
experienced bad time performance. The paper tion System for the Building Industry,
has represented significant factors influencing Construction Management and Economics,
time performance of shop-houses constructions 1992, 10, 489-509.
in order to answer why those projects were in
delay, but some others were on time or ahead of

12
 Andi, et al. / Factors Influencing Time Performance of Shop-House Constructions / CED, Vol. 5, No. 1, 7–13, March 2003

2. Walker D.H.T., An Investigation Into 13. Garson, D.F., ANOVA, http://www2.chass.

Factors That Determine Building Construc- ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/anova.htm, visited
tion Time Performance, Unpublished PhD in 2002.
Dissertation, Royal Melbourne Institute of
Technology, 1995. 14. Newbold, P., Statistics for Business and
Economics, 4th Ed., Prentice Hall, Inc., New
3. Assaf, S.A., et al., Causes of Delay in Large Jersey, 1995.
Building Construction Projects, Journal of
Management in Engineering, ASCE, 1995, 15. Diekmann, J.E. and Nelson, M.C., Cons-
11(2), 45-50. truction Claims: Frequency and Severity.
Journal of Construction Engineering and
4. Kumaraswamy, M.M., and Chan, D.W.M., Management, ASCE, 1985, 111(1), 74-80.
Determinants of Construction Duration,
Construction Management and Economics, 16. Kartam, N.A. and Kartam, S.A., Risk and
1995, 13, 209-217. Its management in the Kuwaiti Construc-
tion Industry: A Contractors’ Perspective.
5. Boussabaine, A.H., and Kaka, A.P., An International Journal of Project Manage-
Artificial Neural Network System for ment, 2001, 19, 325-335.
Predicting Project Duration, The Interna-
tional Journal of Construction Information 17. Laokhongthavorn, L., Recurrent Risk
Technology, 1997, 4(1), 35-45. Assessment for Bangkok High-Rise Building
Projects, Master Thesis, Asian Institute of
6. Kaming P.F. et al., Factors Influencing Technology, Thailand, 1998.
Construction Time and Cost Overruns on
High-rise Projects in Indonesia, Construc- 18. Sawada, M., A Fundamental Study of Risk
tion Management and Economics, 1997, 15, Management in Construction Projects–Risk
83-94. Allocation between Owners and Contractors
for Public Works, Master Thesis (In
7. Andi, Project Schedule Planning Approach Japanese), The University of Tokyo, Japan,
in Uncertain Environments, Master Thesis, 2000.
Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand,
1998. 19. Santoso, D.S., Inherent Risk Assessment for
High-rise Building Contractors in Indone-
8. Moungnoi W. and Charoenngam C., sia, Master Thesis, Asian Institute of
Operational Factors Influencing High-rise Technology, Thailand, 1999.
Building Construction Delay in Thailand,
Proceedings of Third International Confe- 20. Andi, Minato, T. and Kunishima, M.,
rence on Construction Project Management, Design Documents Quality in Japanese
Singapore, 2001, 130-140. Construction Projects: Survey of Its Causes
and Impacts to Construction Process.
9. Prajogo F. and Candra, K.S., Analyses of Proceedings of Third International Confe-
Aspects Causing Project Execution Delay, rence on Construction Project Management,
Undergraduate Thesis (In Indonesian), Singapore, 2002, 170-179.
Petra Christian University, Surabaya,
1996. 21. Soetanto, R., Assessment of Productivity
Perceptions and Factors for Indonesian
10. Praboyo B., Project Execution Time Delay: Construction Personnel, Master Thesis,
Classification and Ranking of its Causes, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand,
Master Thesis (In Indonesian), Petra 1998.
Christian University, Surabaya, 1998.
22. Borcherding, J.D., et al., Improving Moti-
11. Neuman, W.L., Social Research Method: vation and Productivity on Large Projects,
Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Journal of the Construction Division,
3rd Ed., Allyn and Bacon, US, 1997. ASCE, 1980, 106(CO1), 73-89.
23. Fisk, E.R., Construction Project Adminis-
12. Susandi and Wijaya, H., Identification of tration, 5th Ed., Prentice Hall, New Jersey,
Factors Influencing Time Performance of 1997.
Shop-houses Constructions in Surabaya,
Undergraduate Thesis (In Indonesian), 24. Gilbreath, R.D., Managing Construction
Petra Christian University, Surabaya, Contracts, 2nd Ed., John Wiley & Sons, NY,
2002. 1992.

13