Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 33 – uploaded by Madidimalo Mutshaeni

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Table 6.32: Communalities Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. depicts a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.942.

Table 6 32: Communalities Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. depicts a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.942.

Related Figures (111)

Keywords: Construction industry, Project phases, Construction professionals, South Africa and
Keywords: Construction industry, Project phases, Construction professionals, South Africa and
project, Figure 2.1 depicts an outline structure for a typical construction project. Figure 2.1. Typical construction project organogram. Source: Anyanwu (2013)
project, Figure 2.1 depicts an outline structure for a typical construction project. Figure 2.1. Typical construction project organogram. Source: Anyanwu (2013)
Figure 2.2: Project phases - Source: Researcher’s literature review basic process that every project should follow as follows
Figure 2.2: Project phases - Source: Researcher’s literature review basic process that every project should follow as follows
communication although they can be relevant to everyone in an organisation. Figure 2.3: Components of competencies. Source: Pye Tait firm (2014) behaviours such as risk awareness, personal attributes and communication skills. Certain aspects
communication although they can be relevant to everyone in an organisation. Figure 2.3: Components of competencies. Source: Pye Tait firm (2014) behaviours such as risk awareness, personal attributes and communication skills. Certain aspects
nanage and sustain their working relationship. Negotiation encourages conflicting parties to not Figure 2.4: Conflict management styles. Adapted from Kilmann and Thomas (1975) will assist one party in turning things to their favour, this might lead to exclusion from any future Loosemore, Nguyen and Dennis (2000) claim that construction professionals should participate in short term projects and wherein possibility of working together again is minimal. Although it long run. Competing or domination may be advisable in cases where parties are working together
nanage and sustain their working relationship. Negotiation encourages conflicting parties to not Figure 2.4: Conflict management styles. Adapted from Kilmann and Thomas (1975) will assist one party in turning things to their favour, this might lead to exclusion from any future Loosemore, Nguyen and Dennis (2000) claim that construction professionals should participate in short term projects and wherein possibility of working together again is minimal. Although it long run. Competing or domination may be advisable in cases where parties are working together
Figure 2.5: Components of emotional intelligence. Source: Goleman (1998)
Figure 2.5: Components of emotional intelligence. Source: Goleman (1998)
competencies required and how premature project closure can be avoided. The next chapte
competencies required and how premature project closure can be avoided. The next chapte
Table 5.1: Questionnaire response rate 5.4.2. Period of collection
Table 5.1: Questionnaire response rate 5.4.2. Period of collection
Table 5.2: Cronbach’s alpha
Table 5.2: Cronbach’s alpha
Figure 6.1. shows that 57.34% of the respondents were male, and 42.71% of the respondents 6.1.1. SECTION A: BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF RESPONDENTS
Figure 6.1. shows that 57.34% of the respondents were male, and 42.71% of the respondents 6.1.1. SECTION A: BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF RESPONDENTS
According to the results, Figure 6.3 revealed that 79.31% of the respondents were African,
According to the results, Figure 6.3 revealed that 79.31% of the respondents were African,
Managers, 12.20% of the respondents were Quantity Surveyors, 9.76% of the respondents were Construction managers and 2.44% of the respondents were Project Managers, as seen in figure
Managers, 12.20% of the respondents were Quantity Surveyors, 9.76% of the respondents were Construction managers and 2.44% of the respondents were Project Managers, as seen in figure
Figure 6.4: Respondents’ professional qualifications
Figure 6.4: Respondents’ professional qualifications
construction industry and 4.88% of the respondents had 16-20 years of experience in the Figure 6.6 displays that 61.11% of the respondents worked in the private sector, 32.94% of the
construction industry and 4.88% of the respondents had 16-20 years of experience in the Figure 6.6 displays that 61.11% of the respondents worked in the private sector, 32.94% of the
Figure 6.7 revealed that 61.12% of the respondents had been involved in 1-2 projects, 29.32%
Figure 6.7 revealed that 61.12% of the respondents had been involved in 1-2 projects, 29.32%
Figure 6.7: Respondents’ involvement in construction projects had been involved in 3-4 projects, 4.92% of the respondents had been involved in 5-6 projects
Figure 6.7: Respondents’ involvement in construction projects had been involved in 3-4 projects, 4.92% of the respondents had been involved in 5-6 projects
had been involved in three projects that were completed successfully before the deadline.
had been involved in three projects that were completed successfully before the deadline.
Table 6.2: Communalities Table 6.1: Explanation of client related factors
Table 6.2: Communalities Table 6.1: Explanation of client related factors
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Table 6.4: Correlation matrix of factor analysis
Table 6.4: Correlation matrix of factor analysis
Table 6.5: Total variance explained
Table 6.5: Total variance explained
Table 6.6: Client related factors which may contribute to PPC 6.1.2.2. Contractor related factors
Table 6.6: Client related factors which may contribute to PPC 6.1.2.2. Contractor related factors
Table 6.7: Explanation of contractor related factors
Table 6.7: Explanation of contractor related factors
Table 6.8: Communalities
Table 6.8: Communalities
Factor analysis results
Factor analysis results
Table 6.10: Correlation matrix of factor analysis KMO measure of sampling adequacy=0.899; Bartlett test of sphericity=637.527; Significance=0.000
Table 6.10: Correlation matrix of factor analysis KMO measure of sampling adequacy=0.899; Bartlett test of sphericity=637.527; Significance=0.000
Table 6.11: Total variance explained
Table 6.11: Total variance explained
Table 6.12: Contractor related factors which may cause PPC Table 6.13: Explanation of consultant related factors
Table 6.12: Contractor related factors which may cause PPC Table 6.13: Explanation of consultant related factors
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring
Table 6.16: Correlation matrix of factor analysis
Table 6.16: Correlation matrix of factor analysis
Table 6.17: Total variance explained
Table 6.17: Total variance explained
Table 6.18: Consultant related factors which may cause PPC
Table 6.18: Consultant related factors which may cause PPC
Table 6.19: Explanation of external factors
Table 6.19: Explanation of external factors
Table 6.22: Correlation matrix of factor analysis KMO measure of sampling adequacy=0.927; Bartlett test of sphericity=402.573; Significance=0.000
Table 6.22: Correlation matrix of factor analysis KMO measure of sampling adequacy=0.927; Bartlett test of sphericity=402.573; Significance=0.000
Table 6.20: Communalities
Table 6.20: Communalities
Table 6.23: Total variance explained Acronyms explained in Table 6.19. Social influences was ranked fourth with MIS=3.71 and SD=0.728; Natural disasters was ranked
Table 6.23: Total variance explained Acronyms explained in Table 6.19. Social influences was ranked fourth with MIS=3.71 and SD=0.728; Natural disasters was ranked
Table 6.24: External factors which may contribute to PPC
Table 6.24: External factors which may contribute to PPC
6.1.2.5. Contractual relationship factors
6.1.2.5. Contractual relationship factors
Table 6.25: Explanation of contractual relationship factors Factor analysis results
Table 6.25: Explanation of contractual relationship factors Factor analysis results
Table 6.26: Communalities
Table 6.26: Communalities
Table 6.27: KMO and Bartlett’s test
Table 6.27: KMO and Bartlett’s test
KMO measure of sampling adequacy=0.884; Bartlett test of sphericity=357.932; Significance=0.000 Table 6.28: Correlation matrix of factor analysis
KMO measure of sampling adequacy=0.884; Bartlett test of sphericity=357.932; Significance=0.000 Table 6.28: Correlation matrix of factor analysis
Table 6.29: Total variance explained Descriptive analysis results
Table 6.29: Total variance explained Descriptive analysis results
Table 6.30: Contractual relationship factors which may contribute to PPC
Table 6.30: Contractual relationship factors which may contribute to PPC
Table 6.31: Explanation of health and safety factors
Table 6.31: Explanation of health and safety factors
KMO measure of sampling adequacy=0.913; Bartlett’s test of sphericity=669.676; Significance=0.00(
KMO measure of sampling adequacy=0.913; Bartlett’s test of sphericity=669.676; Significance=0.00(
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Table 6.35: Total variance explained
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Table 6.35: Total variance explained
Table 6.36: Health and safety factors which may lead to PPC Table 6.37: Explanation of responsibilities of parties involved
Table 6.36: Health and safety factors which may lead to PPC Table 6.37: Explanation of responsibilities of parties involved
Acronyms used in this section were explained in Table 6.37. The communalities, after extraction,
Acronyms used in this section were explained in Table 6.37. The communalities, after extraction,
Table 6.39: KMO and Bartlett’s test
Table 6.39: KMO and Bartlett’s test
KMO measure of sampling adequacy=0.946; Bartlett’s test of sphericity= 1423.740; Significance=0.000 Table 6.40: Correlation matrix of factor analysis
KMO measure of sampling adequacy=0.946; Bartlett’s test of sphericity= 1423.740; Significance=0.000 Table 6.40: Correlation matrix of factor analysis
Table 6.41: Total variance explained
Table 6.41: Total variance explained
Table 6.42: Ranking of responsibilities of parties involved in a project
Table 6.42: Ranking of responsibilities of parties involved in a project
Table 6.44: Communalities KMO measure of sampling adequacy=0.858; Bartlett’s test of sphericity=232.494; Significance=0.000 Acronume exnlained in Tahle 6 43 KMO measure of sampling adequacy=0.858; Bartlett’s test of sphericity=232.494; Significance=0.000
Table 6.44: Communalities KMO measure of sampling adequacy=0.858; Bartlett’s test of sphericity=232.494; Significance=0.000 Acronume exnlained in Tahle 6 43 KMO measure of sampling adequacy=0.858; Bartlett’s test of sphericity=232.494; Significance=0.000
Table 6.46: Correlation matrix of factor analysis
Table 6.46: Correlation matrix of factor analysis
Table 6.48: Ranking of the impact of PPC on the client project was ranked sixth with MIS=3.24 and SD=0.600. Table 6.48 displays what respondents had to say with regards to the impact of premature project
Table 6.48: Ranking of the impact of PPC on the client project was ranked sixth with MIS=3.24 and SD=0.600. Table 6.48 displays what respondents had to say with regards to the impact of premature project
Table 6.49: Explanation of acronyms used Factor analysis results
Table 6.49: Explanation of acronyms used Factor analysis results
KMO measure of sampling adequacy=0.867; Bartlett’s test of sphericity=444.405; Significance=0.000 Table 6.52: Correlation matrix of factor analysis
KMO measure of sampling adequacy=0.867; Bartlett’s test of sphericity=444.405; Significance=0.000 Table 6.52: Correlation matrix of factor analysis
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Table 6.54: Impact of PPC on team members Table 6.55: Explanation of the impact of PPC on the economy
Table 6.54: Impact of PPC on team members Table 6.55: Explanation of the impact of PPC on the economy
6.1.4.3. Impact on the economy
6.1.4.3. Impact on the economy
Factor analysis results
Factor analysis results
Table 6.56: Communalities of the variance.
Table 6.56: Communalities of the variance.
KMO measure of adequacy= 0.919; Bartlett’s test of sphericity= 530.206; Significance=0.000 Table 6.58: Correlation matrix of factor analysis Table 6.59: Total variance explained
KMO measure of adequacy= 0.919; Bartlett’s test of sphericity= 530.206; Significance=0.000 Table 6.58: Correlation matrix of factor analysis Table 6.59: Total variance explained
Table 6.60: Ranking of the impact of PPC on the economy
Table 6.60: Ranking of the impact of PPC on the economy
Table 6.61: Explanation of necessary competencies
Table 6.61: Explanation of necessary competencies
Table 6.67 below shows how the necessary project ending competencies were ranked. Table 6.66: Total variance explained
Table 6.67 below shows how the necessary project ending competencies were ranked. Table 6.66: Total variance explained
Table 6.67: Project ending competencies required for a project’s successful completion
Table 6.67: Project ending competencies required for a project’s successful completion
Factor analysis results 1.5.2. Changing the team Three acronyms were used in this section and are explained in Table 6.68. The average
Factor analysis results 1.5.2. Changing the team Three acronyms were used in this section and are explained in Table 6.68. The average
KMO measure of sampling adequacy=0.747; Bartlett’s test of sphericity=305.943; Significance=0.000 Table 6.71: Correlation matrix of factor analysis Table 6.72: Total variance explained
KMO measure of sampling adequacy=0.747; Bartlett’s test of sphericity=305.943; Significance=0.000 Table 6.71: Correlation matrix of factor analysis Table 6.72: Total variance explained
Table 6.73: The impact of changing team members in a project changing engineers was ranked third with MIS=3.34 and SD=1.372.
Table 6.73: The impact of changing team members in a project changing engineers was ranked third with MIS=3.34 and SD=1.372.
Table 6.74: How to avoid PPC
Table 6.74: How to avoid PPC
1= Very Poor; 2= Poor; 3= Average; 4= Good; 5= Excellent
1= Very Poor; 2= Poor; 3= Average; 4= Good; 5= Excellent
which closed prematurely but where objectives could not be met.
which closed prematurely but where objectives could not be met.
1=Much Worse; 2= Somewhat worse; 3= About the same; 4= Somewhat better; 5= Much better
1=Much Worse; 2= Somewhat worse; 3= About the same; 4= Somewhat better; 5= Much better
1= Strongly Disagree; 2= Disagree; 3= Neutral; 4= Agree; 5= Strongly Agree
1= Strongly Disagree; 2= Disagree; 3= Neutral; 4= Agree; 5= Strongly Agree
13. To what extent do you agree with changing stakeholders when closing a project prematurely?
13. To what extent do you agree with changing stakeholders when closing a project prematurely?
SECTION F: AVOIDING PREMATURE PROJECT CLOSURE
SECTION F: AVOIDING PREMATURE PROJECT CLOSURE
14. How important are each of the following factors to achieve successful completion of a project?
14. How important are each of the following factors to achieve successful completion of a project?
Related topics:
Construction industry management
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved