The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive

text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-080X.htm

SS
23,1 Factors affecting construction
labour productivity for Malaysian
residential projects
42
M.R. Abdul Kadir, W.P. Lee, M.S. Jaafar, S.M. Sapuan and
A.A.A. Ali
Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia

Abstract
Purpose – Construction labour productivity is of great interest to practitioners and researchers
because it affects project cost and time overrun. This paper evaluates and ranks the importance,
frequency and severity of project delay factors that affect the construction labour productivity for
Malaysian residential projects.
Design/methodology/approach – A total of 100 respondents consisting of 70 contractors,
11 developers and 19 consultants participated in this study. The respondents were asked to indicate
how important each item of a list of 50 project related factors was to construction labour productivity. The
data were then subjected to the calculation of importat indices which enabled the factors to be ranked.
Findings – The five most important factors identified by them were: material shortage at site;
non-payment to suppliers causing the stoppage of material delivery to site; change order by
consultants; late issuance of construction drawing by consultants; and incapability of contractors’ site
management to organise site activities. On the other hand, the five most frequent factors were: material
shortage at project site; non-payment to suppliers causing the stoppage of material delivery to site; late
issuance of progress payment by the client to main contractor; lack of foreign and local workers in the
market; and coordination problem between the main contractor and subcontractor.
Originality/value – The inferences drawn from this study could be used by the project managers to
take account of these factors at an early stage, hence minimising the time and cost overrun.
Keywords Employee productivity, Construction operations, Malaysia
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Malaysia registered a productivity growth of 2.7 percent from RM 24,013 m in 2002 to
RM24,652 m in 2003 (current exchange rate 1USD ¼ RM3.8). Productivity contributed
51.2 percent while employment contributed 47.8 percent to the GDP growth of 5.8
percent. For the period 1998-2003, Malaysia’s economy posted a productivity growth of
2.3 percent (National Productivity Corporation, 2003). This growth surpassed that of
several major countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) namely, the US (2.2 percent), the UK (1.3 percent), Japan
(1.2 percent), Canada (1.1 percent), France (1.0 percent), Germany (0.9 percent), and
Italy (0.1 percent) as shown in Figure 1. Among the selected Asian countries,
Malaysia’s productivity growth was better than Indonesia (0.1 percent), Singapore
(1.1 percent), Thailand (1.1 percent), Hong Kong (1.8 percent), and Philippines
Structural Survey
Vol. 23 No. 1, 2005
pp. 42-54 The authors would like to acknowledge the help provided by Construction Industry
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0263-080X
Development Board, Malaysia (CIDB) and Intensification of Research in Priority Areas, (IRPA) of
DOI 10.1108/02630800510586907 the seventh Malaysia Plan for funding this study.
 Construction
labour
productivity

43

Figure 1.
Comparison of
productivity growth
between Malaysia and
selected OECD countries
for year 1998-2003

(2 percent) but lower than that of Republic of Korea (3.5 percent) and Taiwan
(2.8 percent) – refer Figure 2.
The construction sector registered a productivity growth of 2.6 percent and output
growth of 1.9 percent. The principal factor contributing to this positive growth was the
improvement in domestic demand due to lower interest rates. Furthermore, initiatives
taken by the government to revive large scale infrastructure and to encourage house
ownership also helped to improve the development of this sector.
Although the government’s policy objective in the seventh Malaysia Plan was
productivity driven growth, alas it was not the case. Low productivity combined with
high capital and labour inputs seemed to affect economic growth during the years
preceding the crisis. This was evidenced by low total factor productivity (TFP) growth
and an increasing incremental capital output ratio (ICOR), both of which adversely
affected the economy’s long-run competitiveness (Zaini, 2000). Therefore, in order to
face the challenges of the 21st century, particularly in the building construction
industry, novel methods of construction for improving productivity and reducing the
amount of site labour involved in the building operations have to be developed through
continuous productivity improvement, more value added operations and enhanced
product quality.

Malaysia’s housing need

Having described the general productivity trends in Malaysia, it is now appropriate to
discuss the general scenario about housing need in Malaysia and how the study about
the project delay factors can assist the country to solve its construction productivity
problems, particularly in the housing sector.
The provision of suitable housing is still one of the biggest problems faced by
the world. It is known that increasing population, immigration, and natural disasters
SS
23,1

44

Figure 2.
Comparison of
productivity growth
between Malaysia and
selected Asian countries
for year 1998-2003

are the main reasons for the great housing demand. The industrial revolution caused
an increase in building demand, and because of this, new developments in building
construction systems emerged. Furthermore, the conventional construction method,
which is commonly being practiced in the building construction industry, is unable to
respond to this huge demand in a short time with standard quality (Senturer, 2001).
Although developments in the building construction sector started at the beginning
of the twentieth century, the real developments were realised after the Second World
War during the restoration of the ruined cities (Warszawski, 1999). Today, the Western
World has mad substantial progress in solving its housing problems. However, it is
still a paramount problem for developing countries such as Malaysia, together with the
issue of having better environmental quality. This is a multidimensional problem and
there are many issues related to the reasons for, and the solutions to, the problem. If the
problem is considered from the viewpoint of the building industry (the design,
production, construction and economy of the building), industrialised building systems
seem to be a solution. Buildings constructed by this method have a short construction
time and standard quality (Senturer, 2001).
Although Malaysia did not face the devastating impact of World War II, the
increasing population has prompted the country to put emphasis on housing
particularly the low cost housing as evidenced in the periodic 5 year Malaysia Plan.
Historically, the provision of housing was addressed during the first Malaya Plan
(1956-1960), where a small provision of about RM10 million was allocated for the
development of low cost housing followed by the provision of RM40 million in the Construction
second Malaya Plan (1961-1965). Further, in 1964, the government established the new labour
Ministry of Local Government and Housing to oversee the housing development in the
country. Since then, more vigorous programmes of public housing have been planned productivity
particularly targeted at the low income group. The need of this group was more evident
when over 8,000 applications were received for only a 100 units of low cost house in
Penang (Peng, 1986). This eventually prompted the government to allocate more funds 45
in the first and second Malaysia Plan (1966-1976), where RM150 million was devoted to
low cost housing. As a result, a total of 22,500 low cost housing units were completed
during this period compared to 7,500 units during the previous plan.
During the third Malaysia Plan (1976-1980) and the fourth Malaysia Plan
(1981-1985), a total of 500,000 units and 923,300 units of various categories of houses
were planned, respectively. Subsequently, a total of 701,500 units of houses were
envisaged during the fifth Malaysia Plan (1986-1990). Out of this 71 percent was
allocated to the low cost houses (Peng, 1986). Further, during the sixth Malaysia Plan
(1991-1995), 667,745 houses were required in which the public sector contributed
15.7 percent (104,524 units) while the private sector contributed 84.3 percent
(563,221 units). The number of projects and totals of low cost housing completed
during the Malaysia Plans from 1976-1995 are shown in Table I.
In the seventh Malaysia Plan, the country intended to construct about 800,000 units
of houses for its population. These houses are categorised in Table II. By the end of the
1999, about 70 percent of the target had been achieved. Of the 110,644 units approved
by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to be built within the first 6 months
of 2000, 25.4 percent of the approved units were for low cost unit housing, 38.7 percent
medium cost houses and 35.5 percent higher end houses. A total of 57,925 units of
residential properties were launched in housing schemes in the first half of 2000. Out of
this, 39.4 percent are represented by condominium/apartment units and primarily
concentrated in Selangor and Kuala Lumpur. Nevertheless, the huge supply of

Malaysia plan Number of projects completed Number of units completed

Table I.
Third Malaysia plan (1976-1980) 21 5,153 Number of low cost
Fourth Malaysia plan (1981-1985) 143 21,556 projects and houses
Fifth Malaysia plan (1986-1990) 72 13,992 completed during the
Sixth Malaysia plan (1991-1995) 28 6,042 Malaysia Plans
Source: Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Malaysia, 1997 (1976-1995)

Item Category of house Cost per unit No. of units No. of units (percentage)

1 Low cost house Less than RM25,000 235,000 29.3

2 Low medium cost house RM25,000-RM60,000 350,000 43.75 Table II.
3 Medium cost house RM60,000-RM100,000 85,000 16.25 Categories of housing
4 High cost house More than RM100,000 85,000 10.63 during seventh Malaysia
Source: Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Malaysia, 1997 Plan (1996-2000)
SS higher end condominiums causes its rental at depressed levels (Ministry of Finance,
23,1 Malaysia, 2000).
With the announcement of the eighth Malaysia Plan (2001-2005), the country
continues to embark on developing affordable and sustainable low and medium cost
houses. However, the country is facing an uphill task to accomplish the target of
600,000-800,000 houses during this period. This is because the residential construction
46 industry faces various project-related factors that hinder the timely completion of
projects.

Research objective
Having described the Malaysia’s housing need, it is imperative to identify the project
delay factors that can impede Malaysian residential construction labour productivity
at the project level. Specifically, the objective of this study is to rank the importance,
frequency and severity of project delay factors on labour productivity. By
acknowledging the factors, a preliminary blueprint could be devised by project
managers to minimise the construction time and cost overrun.

Research design
Data for this study were collected through a survey questionnaire administered to 200
participants. A total of 100 questionnaires (or 100 residential projects) were completed
by 70 contractors, 11 developers and 19 consultants, represented a response rate of
50 percent. Of these 100 projects, the majority was apartment (54 percent) followed by
condominium (24 percent percent), link house (11 percent), bungalow (5 percent)
semi-detached (6 percent) as shown in Figure 3. In terms of structural building system
used to construct the house, 55 projects used the conventional building system (timber
and plywood formwork) followed by cast in-situ table form system (16 projects), cast
in-situ half tunnel form system (nine projects), full precast concrete system (precast
concrete wall with precast half slab) (15 projects), composite system (precast concrete
wall with cast in-situ slab) (three projects), block system (one project) and timber
framing system (one project) as shown in Figure 4.
The respondents were asked to indicate how important each item of a list of
50 project related factors was to construction labour productivity (in terms of “strongly
important”, “important”, “neutral”, “not important” or “strongly not important”).
The 50 factors were categorised into consultant factors, client factors, type of contract,

Figure 3.
Classification of projects
according to type of
building
 Construction
labour
productivity

47

Figure 4.
Classification of projects
according to type of
structural building system

contractor factors and external factors to facilitate the ranking. The factors were
taken from relevant literature, as well as from the authors’ practical experience.
The “importance index” was derived for each factor using the following formula
(Lim and Alum, 1995):
5n1 þ 4n2 þ 3n3 þ 2n4 þ n5
Importance index ¼
5ðn1 þ n2 þ n3 þ n4 þ n5 Þ
where n1 is the number of respondents who answered “strongly important”, n2 the
number of respondents who answered “important”, n3 the number of respondents who
answered “neutral”, n4 the number of respondents who answered “not important”, and
n5 the number of respondents who answered “strongly not important”.
The respondents were then asked to rate the frequency of occurrence for each factor
according to three ordinal scales: high (3), medium (2), or low (1). The “frequency
index” for each factor was derived from the following formula:
3n1 þ 2n2 þ n3
Frequency index ¼
3ðn1 þ n2 þ n3 Þ
where n1 is the number of respondents who answered “high”, n2 the number of
respondents who answered “medium”, and n3 the number of respondents who
answered “low”.
Finally, an overall index, the multiplication of “importance index” by the “frequency
index” was named the “severity index”. The severity index was used to rank the
overall implication of each factor on labour productivity for residential projects.
“Severity index” ¼ “Importance index” £ “Frequency index”:

Results on importance of project delay factor on labour productivity

Results indicated that out of 50 factors listed in the questionnaire, the ten most
important factors causing project delay (low labour productivity) as shown in Table III
are as follows:
SS Degree of
23,1 importance quoted
by 100
respondentsa
Total Importance
Project related factors 1 2 3 4 5 respond index Rank
48
Material shortage at project site 64 28 7 0 2 100 0.912 1
Non-payment (financial problem) to suppliers
causing the stoppage of material delivery to site 51 35 9 5 0 100 0.870 2
Change order by consultants causing project
delay 43 40 14 3 0 100 0.848 3
Late issuance of construction drawing by
consultants 38 45 16 1 0 100 0.844 4
Incapability of contractor’s site management to
organise site activities 40 43 14 2 1 100 0.840 5
Late issuance of progress payment by client to
contractor 46 33 15 2 4 100 0.834 6
Late supply of materials in the market 43 35 15 6 1 100 0.834 7
Lack of foreign and local workers in the market 44 33 16 6 1 100 0.832 8
Coordination problem with subcontractor 34 47 14 3 2 100 0.822 9
Equipment shortage 37 38 19 4 2 100 0.812 10
Lack of coordination among consultants 32 50 13 3 2 100 0.810 11
Coordination problem with supplier 27 49 15 7 2 100 0.784 12
Rework due to construction error 26 45 19 6 4 100 0.772 13
Change order causing additional work 23 46 24 5 2 100 0.770 14
Strict government policy on recruitment of
foreign workers 26 43 20 9 2 100 0.766 15
Coordination problem with consultant 21 50 20 7 2 100 0.766 16
Stop work order because of site accident 31 37 19 10 3 100 0.764 17
Workers strike due to unpaid work 29 38 19 10 4 100 0.764 18
Unrealistic deadline for project completion set by
client 30 33 26 8 3 100 0.756 19
Slow response of consultant’s site staffs
attending to inspection work 21 45 24 9 1 100 0.756 20
Work stoppage because of insolvency of
subcontractor 25 39 22 9 5 100 0.748 21
Conventional contract 23 35 31 9 2 100 0.740 22
Inadequate site staffs 20 50 15 10 5 100 0.738 23
Site congestion 19 44 27 5 5 100 0.736 24
Lack of consultant’s site staffs experience
Causing unreasonable insistence on compliance
to specification without due regard for
practicality or site condition 16 48 27 5 4 100 0.736 25
Slow response of consultant to verify progress
claim certificate 25 32 29 9 5 100 0.732 26
Slow local authorities approval 24 35 26 10 5 100 0.730 27
Poor weather condition 13 49 28 8 2 100 0.730 28
Poor buildability design 21 35 30 10 4 100 0.720 29
Construction management contract 21 37 26 11 5 100 0.718 30
Table III.
Centralised decision making by headquarter 18 40 30 5 7 100 0.718 31
Ranking of importance of
project delay factors on
labour productivity (continued)
 Degree of
Construction
importance quoted labour
by 100
respondentsa
productivity
Total Importance
Project related factors 1 2 3 4 5 respond index Rank

Disruption of power/water supplies 23 28 33 15 1 100 0.716 32

49
Stop work order because of infringement of
government regulation 22 33 27 13 5 100 0.716 33
Design and build contract 18 43 23 10 6 100 0.714 34
Contractor staffs absenteeism 23 30 28 13 6 100 0.712 35
Poor economy condition 15 43 27 10 5 100 0.712 36
Tool shortage 17 44 21 14 4 100 0.708 37
Poor site condition 17 36 33 10 4 100 0.704 38
Lack of coordination between client and
contractor 10 43 31 13 3 100 0.694 39
Higher inflation rate 15 35 31 12 7 100 0.684 40
Coordination problem with client 9 41 36 10 4 100 0.682 41
Impact of currency on imported material 15 38 26 13 8 100 0.678 42
Lack of tool and equipment in the market 11 38 33 11 7 100 0.674 43
Cost plus contract 14 28 37 13 8 100 0.658 44
Client lack of experience 11 31 31 17 10 100 0.632 45
Riot 10 35 27 15 13 100 0.632 46
Higher bank interest rate 10 31 36 11 12 100 0.632 47
Absenteeism of consultant’s site staffs during
normal working hour 8 29 38 18 7 100 0.628 48
Project site far from suppliers 3 36 35 19 7 100 0.626 49
Reluctance of consultant’s site staff to work extra
days on sunday and public holiday 10 20 38 24 8 100 0.598 50
a
Note: 1 – Strongly important; 2 – Important; 3 – Neutral; 4 – Not important; 5 – Strongly not
important Table III.

(1) material shortage at project site (importance index¼ 0.912);

(2) non-payment (financial problem) to suppliers causing the stoppage of material
delivery to site (importance index ¼ 0.87);
(3) change order by consultants causing project delay (importance index ¼ 0.848);
(4) late issuance of construction drawing by consultants (importance
index ¼ 0.844);
(5) incapability of contractor’s site management to organise site activities
(importance index ¼ 0.840);
(6) late issuance of progress payment by client to contractor (importance
index ¼ 0.834);
(7) late supply of materials in the market (importance index ¼ 0.834);
(8) lack of foreign and local workers in the market (importance index ¼ 0.832);
(9) coordination problem with subcontractor (importance index ¼ 0.822); and
(10) equipment shortage (importance index ¼ 0.812).
SS Material shortage at project site (importance index ¼ 0.912)
23,1 Lack of material was ranked as the most critical factor causing low labour productivity
with 64 percent of respondents quoted that this factor was “strongly important”.
Lack of material refers to problems encountered due to inaccessibility of items or
excessive time expended to acquire them. As a result of this, workers are often idle
waiting for materials. As the construction activities are interdependent, the shortage of
50 critical materials such as rebars, ready-mixed concrete and formwork impede the work
sequence and progress.
The site management should plan ahead to ensure that the critical materials are
available at site all the time. Sometimes, the non-availability of materials is caused by
negligence and sabotage. For instances, during bad economic times, the project
manager might purposely delay the work progress to prolong the contract period
especially those employed on a contract basis. In this case, the top management should
be mindful of the behaviour of the project manager.
Lack of materials was found to be the most critical construction delay factor in
Indonesia (Kaming et al., 1998), Iran (Zakeri et al., 1996) and Nigeria (Olomolaiye et al.,
1987). It was also ranked eighth in Singapore construction productivity problems
(Lim and Alum, 1995). In urban Singapore, timely delivery of materials is paramount
because of inadequate storage spaces. When materials are delivered too early, double
handling occurs, hence causing the loss of man-hours.

Non-payment (financial problem) to suppliers causing the stoppage of material delivery

to site (importance index ¼ 0.87)
The second most important factor resulting in low labour productivity is the stoppage
of material delivery by the suppliers due to non-payment by the contractors with an
importance index of 0.87 or equivalent to 51 percent of respondents who answered
“strongly important”. This makes the suppliers lose their confidence in the credibility
of the contractors. Sometimes, the suppliers insist on cash terms or a bank guarantee
before the delivery the materials. Delay in material delivery to site was ranked 12th in
Singapore construction problems (Lim and Alum, 1995).

Change order by consultants causing project delay (importance index ¼ 0.848)

Change order by consultants was ranked the third factor causing low labour
productivity (importance index ¼ 0.848). Change order might occur due to design error
during planning stage. This factor is a particularly irritating and costly problem if the
work has been done. For instance, hacking of hardened concrete is time consuming
and affects the workers’ motivation. Work sequences are also disrupted due to rework.
This problem was ranked fourth most important productivity problem in Indonesia
construction projects (Kaming et al., 1998).

Late issuance of construction drawing (importance index ¼ 0.844)

Late issuance of construction drawing by consultants was ranked fourth most
critical delay factor with an importance index of 0.848. This may cause man-hours
lost due to workers idling. For instance, late issuance of the pilecap construction
drawing results in delay to progress of structural frame work because it cannot
be done without first completing the pilecap work. Often the late issuance of
construction drawing is interrelated to coordination problem among consultants
factor which was ranked 11th in term of importance of delay (importance Construction
index ¼ 0.810). labour
Incapability of contractor’s site management to organise site activities (importance productivity
index ¼ 0.840)
An effective and efficient site management team is paramount to ensure that work
sequence is accomplished according to work programme. Poor knowledge and the 51
inexperience of the site management team in planning, scheduling and procurement
impedes the work progress. The project manager should check for discrepancies between
structural, architectural and electrical construction drawings to avoid rework.
Subcontractors should be appointed even before site procession so that they can be
familiar with the construction drawing, and planning of labour, which can be done at an
early stage. The incapability of contractor’s site management to organise site activities
was ranked as fifth factor in term of importance of delay with an importance index of 0.84.

Late issuance of progress payment by client to contractor (importance index ¼ 0.834)

Late issuance of progress payment by client to contractor can severely hinder the work
progress. This delay factor was ranked sixth (importance index ¼ 0.834) among the
other factors. Delay in progress payment affects cash flow of contractors which in turn
affects the payment to workers and suppliers. This causes detrimental effects on
workers’ motivation and suppliers’ creditability.

Late supply of materials in the market (importance index ¼ 0.834)

Currently, the construction industry in Malaysia experiences severe shortage of steel
bar due to artificial shortage created by the suppliers. Steel bars are critical material in
any construction project and are a controlled item in Malaysia with price ranged from
RM1214 to RM1284 per tonne but are being sold on the black market between RM1800
– RM2,000 per tonne. Some contractors have to wait up to 2 months before getting a
supply. This severely affects the project work progress. The delay caused by lack of
material was ranked seventh with an importance index of 0.834.

Lack of foreign and local workers in the market (importance index ¼ 0.832)
The Malaysian construction industry is facing an acute shortage of construction workers
due to vacancies left by the local workers who prefer to join lucrative and conducive
working environments in the manufacturing and service sectors. It was reported that 30.6
percent out of 425,041 legal foreign workers ( July 1992-December 1995) were working on
construction projects, while the percentage of illegal workers was 46.6 percent out of a total
133,397 illegal workers (February 1993-1996) as quoted in Abdul-Aziz and Abdul-Rashid
(2001). Delay caused by inadequate construction workers was ranked eighth with an
importance index of 0.824. In order to discount this delay factor, the government should
take proactive measures to train and encourage local people to join the construction
industry. This helps to reduce the reliance on foreign workers.

Coordination problem with subcontractor (importance Index ¼ 0.822)

Coordination problems between main contractors and subcontractors pose a major
hindrance to work progress. The common coordination problems such as late issuance
of revised construction drawings to subcontractor can cause rework due to
SS construction errors. This problem was ranked ninth with an importance index of 0.822.
23,1 To resolve this problem, site meetings should be held regularly between the main
contractor and subcontractors to clarify any outstanding issues.

Equipment shortage (importance Index ¼ 0.812)

Equipment shortage refers to frequent breakdown of major equipment, shortage of
52 spare parts, improper service and maintenance, slack use of machinery or deliberate
sabotage by operators. This problem causes major idle time since employed workers
are unable to progress their work due to material transportation problems.
The equipment shortage was ranked 10th with an importance index of 0.812. This
factor ranked as the fifth major problem in Iranian construction projects or 4.6 hour
lost per operative per week (Zakeri et al., 1996).

Results of frequency of project delay factors on labour productivity

The first 10 most frequent project delay factors quoted by the respondents that cause
low labour productivity are listed below:
(1) material shortage at project site (frequency index ¼ 0.727);
(2) non-payment (financial problem) to suppliers causing the stoppage of material
delivery to site (frequency index ¼ 0.723);
(3) late issuance of progress payment by client to main contractor (frequency
index ¼ 0.720);
(4) lack of foreign and local workers in the market (frequency index ¼ 0.677);
(5) coordination problem between main contractor and subcontractor (frequency
index ¼ 0.663);
(6) change order by client causing additional work (frequency index ¼ 0.663);
(7) incapability of site management to organise site activities (frequency
index ¼ 0.600);
(8) unrealistic deadline for project completion date set by the client (frequency
index ¼ 0.650);
(9) change order due to error in construction drawing by consultant (frequency
index ¼ 0.643); and
(10) coordination problem between main contractor and suppliers (frequency
index ¼ 0.637).

Result on severity of project delay factors on labour productivity

The first ten most severe project delay factors mentioned by the respondents that cause
low labour productivity are listed below:
(1) material shortage at project site (severity index ¼ 0.663);
(2) non-payment (financial problem) to suppliers causing the stoppage of material
delivery to site (frequency index ¼ 0.629);
(3) late issuance of progress payment by client to main contractor (frequency
index ¼ 0.600);
(4) lack of foreign and local workers in the market (frequency index ¼ 0.563);
 (5) incapability of site management to organise site activities (frequency Construction
index ¼ 0.554); labour
(6) change order due to error in construction drawing by consultant (frequency productivity
index ¼ 0.546);
(7) coordination problem between the main contractor and subcontractor
(frequency index ¼ 0.545);
53
(8) late issuance of construction drawing by consultants (severity index ¼ 0.520);
(9) lack of material in the market (severity index ¼ 0.517);
(10) change order by client causing additional work (frequency index ¼ 0.511).

Recommendation
The results of the survey indicated that the top two most important, frequent and
severe factors that are adversely affecting construction labour productivity at a project
level were material shortage at site and non-payment to suppliers causing the stoppage
of material delivery. Lack of material means that the workers are idling doing nothing.
This would affect the workers’ motivation and productivity. To overcome this
problem, the procurement department should always coordinate with site staff on the
material shortage at site. Something, the materials shortage is linked to artificial
shortage created by the suppliers who prefer to export them to other countries for extra
profit. For instance, the artificial shortage of steel bar in the early part of 2004 causing
the price increases by 60 percent in local markets and many projects experienced delay.
In this matter, the government should take proactive action by restricting the export
since the steel bar is subject to price control in Malaysia.

Conclusion
The Malaysian residential industry experiences time and cost overrun due to various
project delay factors that affect construction labour productivity. This paper has
identified and ranked those factors that affect construction labour productivity.
Results indicated that the five most important factors, they are as follows:
(1) material shortage at project site;
(2) non-payment (financial problem) to suppliers causing the stoppage of material
delivery to site;
(3) change order by consultants causing project delay;
(4) late issuance of construction drawing by consultants; and
(5) incapability of contractor’s site management to organise site activities.
On the other hand, the five most frequent factors are listed below:
(1) material shortage at project site;
(2) financial problem (non-payment) to suppliers causing the stoppage of material
delivery to site;
(3) late issuance of progress payment by the client to main contractor;
(4) lack of foreign and local workers in the market; and
(5) coordination problem between the main contractor and subcontractor.
SS Finally, the five most severe project delay factors are listed below:
23,1 (1) material shortage at project site;
(2) non-payment (financial problem) to suppliers causing the stoppage of material
delivery to site;
(3) late issuance of progress payment by the client to main contractor;
54 (4) lack of foreign and local workers in the market; and
(5) incapability of site management to organise site activities.
It was concluded that the most important, frequent and severe factors were related to
the availability of materials at site. This result was substantiated by studies carried out
in Indonesia, Iran, Singapore and Nigeria. By acknowledging the project delay factors
that cause low construction labour productivity, project managers can address the
problems at an early stage, thus minimising time and cost overruns.

References
Abdul-Aziz and Abdul-Rashid (2001), “Foreign workers and labour segmentation in Malaysia’s
construction industry”, Construction, Management and Economics, Vol. 19, pp. 789-98.
Kaming, P.F., Holt, G.D., Kometa, S.T. and Olomolaiye, P.O. (1998), “Severity diagnosis of
productivity problems – a reliability analysis”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 107-13.
Lim, E.C. and Alum, J. (1995), “Construction productivity: issues encountered by contractors in
Singapore”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 51-8.
Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Malaysia (1997), Research and Development
Division, National Housing Department, Housing Strategies and Programmes in Malaysia.
Ministry of Finance, Malaysia (2000), Economic Report, Malaysia National Publications Ltd.
National Productivity Corporation (2003), 10th Productivity Report, Malaysia.
Olomolaiye, P.O., Wahab, K.A. and Price, A.D.F. (1987), “Problems influencing craftmen’s
productivity in Nigeria”, Building and Environment, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 317-23.
Senturer, A. (2001), Which Industrialised Systems Are Appropriate for Turkey, available at: www.
emu.edu.tr/academic/publicat/archpub/arch-32a.htm
Warszawski, A. (1999), Industrialized and Automated Building Systems, Technion-Israel Institute
of Technology. F&FN SPON, London, New York, NY.
Zaini, O. (2000), Malaysian Construction Industry: Challenges and Demands, Malaysian
Structural Steel Association Convention, Serdang.
Zakeri, M., Olomolaiye, P.O., Holt, G.D. and Harris, F.C. (1996), “A survey of constraints on
Iranian construction operative’s productivity”, Construction Management and Economics,
Vol. 14, pp. 417-26.