0
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF OWNER
PARTICIPATION FOR A SUCCESSFUL
DETACHED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN
MALAYSIA
SYED AHMAD QUSOIRI SYED ABDUL KARIM
MSc. (Project Management), BSc. (Building),
Dip. (Quantity Survey)
Assoc. Prof. Bambang Trigunarsyah
Dr. Fiona Lamari
Dr. Johnny Wong
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment
Faculty of Science and Engineering
Queensland University of Technology
May 2013
i
Keywords
Residential Development, Detached Housing, Bungalow, Critical Success
Factors, Development Barriers, Owner Participation, Owner Satisfaction,
Quantitative, Factor Analysis, Structural Equation Modelling, Qualitative, Semi-
Structured Interview, Malaysia.
ii
Abstract
The detached housing scheme is a unique and exclusive segment of the
residential property market in Malaysia. Generally, the product is expensive and for
many Malaysians who can afford them, owning a detached house is a once in a
lifetime opportunity. In spite of this, most of the owners failed to fully comprehend
the specific need of this type of housing scheme, increasing the risk of it being a
problematic undertaking. Unlike other types of pre-designed “mass housing”
schemes, the detached housing scheme may be built specifically to cater the needs
and demands of its owner. Therefore, owner participation during critical
development stages is vital to guarantee the success of the development as a whole.
In addition, due to its unique design the house would have to individually comply
with the requirements and regulations of relevant authorities. Failure by the owner to
recognise this will result in delays, penalties, disputes and ultimately cost overruns.
These circumstances highlight the need for a research to guide the owner through
participation during the critical development stages of a detached house. Therefore,
this research aims to develop a guideline to improve owner participation for a
successful detached house development in Malaysia.
To achieve the aim, questionnaire surveys and semi-structured interviews were
employed to collect the detached house owners’ and consultants’ & contractors’
responses through their experiences in developing detached houses in Malaysia.
Stratified and random sampling were utilised to gather information from both parties
to represent Malaysian detached house participants. The questionnaire responses
were analysed through the application of quantitative analysis such as descriptive
analysis, factor analysis and structural equation modelling which were substantiated
through qualitative analysis procedure such as content analysis.
This research had identified that in order to produce a successful outcome
detached house owners are required to participate during critical stages of the
development. In the planning stage, the owner needs to provide proper specific input
to the consultant regarding his/her expectations of the cost for the entire
development, its detailed specification and general idea of the internal and external
design of the detached house and its compound. In the contracting stage, the owner
iii
must make the appropriate choice of selecting the right contractor for the job. This
decision may be taken after recommendations from the consultants or from the
owner’s personal contacts or experiences but it is not recommended for the owner to
select a contractor primarily on the basis of the lowest bid. In the completion stage,
the owner may need to attend a number of important site meetings to ensure that the
progress of the works is according to what had been planned and the completion date
is achievable. By having the owners undertake an active role during critical stages of
the development, not only the quality and delivery of the development improved but
also there is an increase in satisfaction to the owners themselves.
iv
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Keywords .................................................................................................................... i
Abstract ..................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................iv
List of Figures ............................................................................................................. xi
List of Tables ............................................................................................................ xiv
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................. xvi
Statement of Original Authorship .............................................................................. xx
Dedication ................................................................................................................ xxi
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. xxii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 RESEARCH PROBLEM ....................................................................................... 1
1.2 RESEARCH AIM ................................................................................................ 3
1.3 THESIS OUTLINE .............................................................................................. 3
CHAPTER 2: GLOBAL AND MALAYSIAN DETACHED HOUSING SECTOR 6
2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 6
2.2 DETACHED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ............................................................... 6
2.2.1 Detached Housing Scheme ............................................................................................... 6
2.2.2 Success Factors of Detached Housing Development Projects........................................ 12
2.2.3 Barriers in the Successful Development of Detached Housing Projects ........................ 15
2.2.4 Owner Satisfaction in Measuring Development Success ............................................... 18
2.3 CURRENT PRACTICE OF DETACHED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN MALAYSIA .... 19
2.3.1 Overview of Residential Property Market in Malaysia ................................................... 19
2.3.2 Development Trend of Detached Housing Scheme in Malaysia .................................... 27
2.4 SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 36
v
CHAPTER 3: OWNER PARTICIPATION AND SUCCESS IN DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS 37
3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 37
3.2 THE CONCEPT OF OWNER PARTICIPATION ..................................................... 37
3.2.1 Role of Project Owners in Construction Projects ........................................................... 37
3.2.2 Owner Participation in Housing Development Projects ................................................. 41
3.2.3 Challenges of the Concept of ‘Owner Participation’ ...................................................... 46
3.3 RESEARCH VARIABLES.................................................................................... 47
3.3.1 Development Success Factors ........................................................................................ 48
3.3.2 Development Barriers .................................................................................................... 51
3.3.3 Owner Participation ....................................................................................................... 53
3.3.4 Owner Satisfaction ......................................................................................................... 55
3.4 SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 56
CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHOD 57
4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 57
4.2 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK ............................................................................... 57
4.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS .................................................................................. 59
4.4 SELECTION OF RESEARCH METHOD ................................................................ 62
4.5 DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH METHOD ............................................................ 63
4.5.1 Questionnaire ................................................................................................................. 63
4.5.2 Semi-Structured Interviews ............................................................................................ 77
4.5.3 Ethics and Limitations .................................................................................................... 79
4.6 SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 79
CHAPTER 5: MODEL COMPONENT ANALYSIS 80
5.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 80
5.2 SAMPLE BACKGROUND.................................................................................. 81
5.2.1 Owner Respondents’ Background .................................................................................. 81
5.2.2 Consultant & Contractor Respondents’ Background ..................................................... 83
5.2.3 Respondents’ Detached House Development Background............................................ 85
5.3 DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES........................................................................ 88
5.3.1 Data Preparation ............................................................................................................ 89
vi
5.3.2 Descriptive Analysis ........................................................................................................ 90
5.3.3 Factor Analysis ................................................................................................................ 90
5.4 Factor 1: Development Success Factors .......................................................... 91
5.4.1 Descriptive Analysis ........................................................................................................ 91
5.4.2 Factor Analysis ................................................................................................................ 92
5.5 Factor 2: Development Barriers ..................................................................... 96
5.5.1 Descriptive Analysis ........................................................................................................ 96
5.5.2 Factor Analysis ................................................................................................................ 97
5.6 Factor 3: Owner Participation ....................................................................... 101
5.6.1 Descriptive Analysis ...................................................................................................... 101
5.6.2 Factor Analysis .............................................................................................................. 103
5.7 Factor 4: Owner Satisfaction ......................................................................... 108
5.7.1 Descriptive Analysis ...................................................................................................... 108
5.7.2 Factor Analysis .............................................................................................................. 109
5.8 SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 113
CHAPTER 6: OWNER PARTICIPATION ANALYSIS 114
6.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 114
6.2 DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELLING (SEM) ANALYSIS ....... 114
6.3 VALIDITY OF THE ESTIMATED MEASUREMENT MODEL .................................. 115
6.4 COMPONENT OF ESTIMATED STRUCTURAL MODEL ....................................... 118
6.4.1 Development Success Factors ...................................................................................... 118
6.4.2 Development Barriers .................................................................................................. 121
6.4.3 Owner Participation ..................................................................................................... 124
6.4.4 Owner Satisfaction ....................................................................................................... 127
6.5 MERGED STRUCTURAL MODEL ...................................................................... 129
6.6 SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 136
CHAPTER 7: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW ANALYSIS 138
7.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 138
7.2 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS ................................................................... 138
7.2.1 Interview Guide ............................................................................................................ 138
7.2.2 Interview Analysis......................................................................................................... 139
vii
7.2.3 Interview Process ......................................................................................................... 141
7.3 PARTICIPANT AND DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND ......................................... 142
7.3.1 Participant 1: Detached House Owner (MMD) ............................................................ 142
7.3.2 Participant 2: Detached House Owner (BK) ................................................................. 143
7.3.3 Participant 3: Detached House Owner (PMS) .............................................................. 144
7.3.4 Participant 4: Detached House Owner (PMH) .............................................................. 144
7.3.5 Participant 5: Consultant & Contractor (NMH) ............................................................ 145
7.3.6 Participant 6: Consultant & Contractor (MEM) ............................................................ 145
7.3.7 Participant 7: Consultant & Contractor (NSL) ............................................................... 146
7.3.8 Participant 8: Consultant & Contractor (AAA) .............................................................. 147
7.4 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW ANALYSIS ..................................................... 147
7.5 FINAL STRUCTURAL MODEL .......................................................................... 157
7.6 INDICATORS LOADING ANALYSIS .................................................................. 159
7.7 SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 162
CHAPTER 8: DISCUSSION 163
8.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 163
8.2 CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT SUCCESS FACTORS AND BARRIERS OF DETACHED
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN MALAYSIA ................................................................... 163
8.2.1 Critical Development Success Factors .......................................................................... 165
8.2.2 Critical Development Barriers ...................................................................................... 166
8.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF OWNER PARTICIPATION FOR A SUCCESSFUL DETACHED
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................ 168
8.4 GUIDELINE FOR SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPMENT OF DETACHED HOUSES IN
MALAYSIA ............................................................................................................... 168
8.4.1 Critical Owner Participation Factors ............................................................................. 169
8.4.2 Critical Owner Satisfaction Factors .............................................................................. 170
8.4.3 Guideline for Successful Development of Detached Houses in Malaysia Visual
Representation .......................................................................................................................... 171
CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION 176
9.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 176
9.2 IMPROVEMENT OF OWNER PARTICIPATION .................................................. 177
9.3 CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS .................................................................... 180
viii
9.3.1 Contributions to Theory and Methods ......................................................................... 181
9.3.2 Practical Contributions ................................................................................................. 183
9.3.3 Research Benefits ......................................................................................................... 184
9.4 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................ 184
9.4.1 Limitations Related to Research Scope ........................................................................ 184
9.4.2 Limitations Related to Research Design ....................................................................... 185
9.5 DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ............................................................. 186
APPENDIX A: RESEARCH ETHICS APPROVAL 187
APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE FORM 189
B1. OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE FORM (MALAY LANGUAGE) ........................................ 189
B2. CONSULTANT & CONTRACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE FORM (MALAY LANGUAGE) ...... 201
APPENDIX C: QUESTIONNAIRE (Q1, 2, 3 & 15) RELIABILITY ANALYSIS 213
APPENDIX D: QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS 215
D1. SECTION 1: THE SUCCESS FACTORS / BARRIERS OF DETACHED HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................ 215
D2. SECTION 2: THE INVOLVEMENT OF OWNERS IN THE DETACHED HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................ 219
D3. SECTION 3: DETACHED HOUSE INFORMATION .................................................... 222
D3A. Ownership of Property ..................................................................................................... 222
D3B. Location of Residence ....................................................................................................... 223
D3C. Size of the Detached House Site Area ............................................................................... 225
D3D. Contract Value of Detached House before Project Commenced ..................................... 226
D3E. Actual Development Cost after Detached House Completion .......................................... 227
D3F. Development Period for Entire Detached House Development ....................................... 229
D3G. Detached House Development Completion ..................................................................... 231
D3F. Time Extension Given for Detached House Development ................................................ 233
D3G. Number of Days Given for Time Extension ....................................................................... 234
D3H. Appointed Parties for Detached House Development in Order ....................................... 236
D3I. Design of Detached House ................................................................................................. 238
D4. SECTION 4: SATISFACTION LEVEL OF DETACHED HOUSE OWNER ......................... 239
D5. SECTION 5: RESPONDENTS’ INFORMATION (OWNERS ONLY) .............................. 241
D5A. Respondent’s Age (Owners Only) ..................................................................................... 241
ix
D5B. Respondent’s Gender (Owners Only) ............................................................................... 243
D5C. Respondent’s Occupation (Owners Only) ......................................................................... 244
D5D. Number of Resident in Detached House (Owners Only) .................................................. 245
D5E. Monthly Household Income (Owners Only) ...................................................................... 246
D5F. Duration of Residence in Detached House (Since 2001) (Owners Only) ........................... 248
D6. SECTION 5: RESPONDENTS’ INFORMATION (CONSULTANTS / CONTRACTORS ONLY)
............................................................................................................................... 250
D6A. Respondents’ Age (Consultants / Contractors Only) ........................................................ 250
D6B. Respondents’ Gender (Consultants / Contractors Only)................................................... 252
D6C. Respondents’ Position in Organisation (Consultants / Contractors Only) ........................ 253
D6D. Main Business of Organisation (Consultants / Contractors Only) .................................... 254
D6E. Contractor Class for Construction Contractor Respondents (Consultants / Contractors
Only) .......................................................................................................................................... 255
D6F. Duration of the Respondents’ Employment (Consultants / Contractors Only) ................. 256
D6G. Size of the Respondents’ Organisation (Consultants / Contractors Only) ........................ 257
APPENDIX E: FACTOR ANALYSIS REPORT 259
E1. QUESTION 1: DEVELOPMENT SUCCESS FACTORS ................................................. 259
E2. QUESTION 2: DEVELOPMENT BARRIERS .............................................................. 262
E3. QUESTION 3: OWNER PARTICIPATION ................................................................ 265
E4. QUESTION 15: OWNER SATISFACTION ................................................................ 269
APPENDIX F: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM 272
F1. DETACHED HOUSE OWNERS ............................................................................... 272
F2. CONSULTANTS / CONTRACTORS ......................................................................... 276
APPENDIX G: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE 280
G1. THEME 1: PLANNING STAGE ............................................................................... 280
G2. THEME 2: DESIGN AND CONTRACTUAL STAGE .................................................... 280
G3. THEME 3: CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION STAGE ......................................... 281
APPENDIX H: SEMI STRUCTURE INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS’ RESPONSES 283
H1. QUESTION 1: DEVELOPMENT SUCCESS FACTORS ................................................ 283
H2. QUESTION 2: DEVELOPMENT BARRIERS ............................................................. 299
x
H3. QUESTION 3: OWNER PARTICIPATION ................................................................ 305
H4. QUESTION 15: OWNER SATISFACTION ................................................................ 317
APPENDIX I: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW CODING SUMMARY 326
I1. OWNER PARTICIPANT ......................................................................................... 326
I2. CONSULTANT & CONTRACTOR PARTICIPANT ....................................................... 332
REFERENCES 336
xi
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Standardisation - customisation relationship compared by housing type. Adapted from “A
`mass custom design' approach to upgrading conventional housing development in Mexico” by
Noguchi, M., & Hernàndez-Velasco, C. R., (2005), Habitat International, 29(2), p. 334. ....................... 8
Figure 2.2: The eternal triangle between cost, time and quality. Adapted from “Quest for continuous
quality improvement for public housing construction in Hong Kong,” by Tam, C. M., Deng, Z. M., Zeng,
S. X., & Ho, C. S., (2000), Construction Management & Economics, 18(4), p. 438. .............................. 13
Figure 2.3: Project success framework for Mass-Housing Building Projects (MHBPs). Adapted from
“Critical success criteria for mass house building projects in developing countries”, by Ahadzie, D. K.,
Proverbs, D. G., & Olomolaiye, P. O., (2008), International Journal of Project Management, 26(6), 678.
.............................................................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 2.4: Building blocks of project life cycle. Adapted from “Criteria of project success: an
exploratory re-examination,” by Lim, C. S., & Mohamed, M. Z., (1999), International Journal of Project
Management, 17(4), p. 245. ................................................................................................................ 15
Figure 2.5: The risk management process. Adapted from “Risk assessment practices in The
Netherlands,” by Ale, B. J. M., (2002), Safety Science, 40(1-4), p. 108. ................................................ 16
Figure 2.6: Alternative project execution approaches. Adapted from “Which project-execution
approach is best for you?,” by Ireland, T, (2001), IEEE Industry Applications Magazine, 7(6), p. 34. .. 17
Figure 2.7: Risks and the development process. Adapted from “Delivering New Homes. Processes,
planners and providers,” by Carmona, M., Carmona, S., & Gallent, N., (2003), (1st. ed.) London, UK:
Routledge, p. 72. .................................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 2.8: Construction Sector Growth and Malaysian Economic Trend (Constant Price) for Year 1980
- Q1 2009. Adapted from “Construction Economic Indicator,” by CIDB, (2010), Construction Industry
Development Board Malaysia, p. 1. ..................................................................................................... 21
Figure 2.9: “Performance of Different Property Sectors in Malaysia (2001 – 2008),” Adapted from
“NAPIC Overall Statistics,” by NAPIC, Valuation and Property Services Department, Ministry of
Finance Malaysia, (2009), p. 19. .......................................................................................................... 22
Figure 2.10: Supply of Residential Units by Type in Malaysia 2005 – 2009 (Existing Stock). Adapted
from “Quarterly Residential Property Stock Report,” by Valuation and Property Services Department,
Ministry of Finance Malaysia (2005 - 2009), pp. 3-5. ........................................................................... 29
Figure 2.11: Pricing of Residential Units by Type in Malaysia (Quarter 2, 2009). Adapted from
“Quarterly Residential Property Stock Report,” by Valuation and Property Services Department,
Ministry of Finance Malaysia (2005 - 2009), pp. 3-5. ........................................................................... 30
Figure 2.12: Pricing of Residential Units by Type in Malaysia (Quarter 2, 2009) (Outliers in Figure 2.12
limited to RM1,000,000 (AU$314,400). Adapted from “Quarterly Residential Property Stock Report,”
xii
by Valuation and Property Services Department, Ministry of Finance Malaysia (2005 - 2009), pp. 3-5.
.............................................................................................................................................................. 31
Figure 2.13: Gross Sales Volume of Residential Units Supply in Malaysia (2005 - 2009). Adapted from
“Quarterly Residential Property Stock Report,” by Valuation and Property Services Department,
Ministry of Finance Malaysia (2005 - 2009), pp. 3-5. ........................................................................... 32
Figure 2.14: Supply of Detached Houses vs. Size of States in Malaysia (Q2, 2009). Adapted from
“Jumlah Penduduk dan Keluasan Setiap Negeri di Malaysia,” by Indayati, S. (2000) and “Quarterly
Residential Property Stock Report,” by Valuation and Property Services Department, Ministry of
Finance Malaysia (2005 - 2009) , pp. 3-5. ............................................................................................ 33
Figure 2.15: Summary of Supply of Residential Units by Type in Malaysia (numbers). Adapted from
“Quarterly Residential Property Stock Report,” by Valuation and Property Services Department,
Ministry of Finance Malaysia (2005 - 2009), pp. 3-5 ............................................................................ 34
Figure 2.16: The Malaysian House Price Index (2000 – 2008). Adapted from “NAPIC Overall Statistics,”
by NAPIC, Valuation and Property Services Department, Ministry of Finance Malaysia, (2009), p. 1. 35
Figure 3.1: Involvement of client (or customers / owners) in project definition and engineering.
Adapted from “Anatomy of decision making in project planning teams” by Shapira, A., Laufer, A., & J
Shenhar, A., (1994),. International Journal of Project Management, 12(3), p. 177. ............................ 43
Figure 3.2: Housing Program Entitlements. Adapted from “Building Back Better: The Large-Scale
Impact of Small-Scale Approaches to Reconstruction,” by Lyons, M. , (2009), World Development,
37(2), p. 388. ........................................................................................................................................ 45
Figure 4.1: Research implementation. ................................................................................................. 61
Figure 4.2: The states and federal territories of Peninsular Malaysia. Retrieved 2011, from
www.malaysiacentral.com. .................................................................................................................. 72
Figure 4.3: The survey run for the door-to-door distribution of detached house owner questionnaire.
Retrieved 2011 from www.maps.google.com.my. ............................................................................... 76
Figure 5.1: The percentage of respondents’ house completed between 1990 to 2012. ....................... 86
Figure 6.1: A path diagram showing correlational relationship between constructs (CFA /
Measurement Model). ........................................................................................................................ 116
Figure 6.2: The structural model of development success factors produced by factor analysis (model
unfit). .................................................................................................................................................. 119
Figure 6.3: The structural model of development success factors (model fit). ................................... 120
Figure 6.4: The structural model of development barriers produced by factor analysis (model unfit).
............................................................................................................................................................ 122
Figure 6.5: The structural model of development barriers (model fit). .............................................. 123
Figure 6.6: The structural model of owner participation produced by factor analysis (model unfit). 125
Figure 6.7: The structural model of owner participation (model fit). ................................................. 126
Figure 6.8: The structural model of owner satisfaction produced by factor analysis (model unfit). .. 127
Figure 6.9: The structural model of owner satisfaction (model fit). ................................................... 128
xiii
Figure 6.10: The merged structural model (model unfit). .................................................................. 130
Figure 6.11: The merged structural model (model fit). ...................................................................... 133
Figure 7.1: The indicators that are substituted based on the analysis results of the semi-structured
interviews (coloured red). ................................................................................................................... 155
Figure 7.2: The final structural model (model fit). .............................................................................. 157
Figure 8.1: The final structural model and its relationship to the research’s objectives (objective 1:
blue, objective 2: green and objective 3: orange). ............................................................................. 164
Figure 8.2: The guideline for a successful detached housing development in Malaysia. ................... 172
xiv
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Housing stock by type of building and type of tenure in Denmark (as of 1 January 1999). .. 9
Table 2.2: Single-Family Detached Housing Trends by Planning Subarea, 2000 – 2040. Loudoun
County, Virginia. ................................................................................................................................... 11
Table 2.3 Public and private sector housing targets and achievement, 2001 – 2005. ......................... 25
Table 3.1: The levels of standardisation and customisation compared by housing type. .................... 44
Table 3.2: The list of indicators for the development success factors and its sources. ........................ 49
Table 3.3: The list of indicators for the development barriers and its sources. .................................... 51
Table 3.4: The list of indicators for the owner participation and its sources........................................ 53
Table 3.5: The list of indicators for the owner satisfaction and its sources. ......................................... 55
Table 4.1: Indicators of Question 1 (Development Success Factors). ................................................... 65
Table 4.2: Indicators of Question 2 (Development Barriers). ............................................................... 66
Table 4.3: Indicators of Question 3 (Owner Participation). .................................................................. 67
Table 4.4: Indicators of Question 15 (Owner Satisfaction). .................................................................. 68
Table 4.5: The Summary of Supply of Residential Units by Type in Malaysia (Quarter 2 2009). .......... 71
Table 4.6: The Selected Surveyed States of Peninsular Malaysia. ........................................................ 73
Table 4.7: Sampling Method of Questionnaire Distribution for Detached House Owners. .................. 74
Table 5.1: The overall questionnaire responses. .................................................................................. 81
Table 5.2: CIDB Contractor Grade Classification. ................................................................................. 84
Table 5.3: The general design for the majority of the respondents’ house (according to the number of
response). ............................................................................................................................................. 87
Table 5.4: Development success factors indicators ranked based on their means and standard
deviations. ............................................................................................................................................ 92
Table 5.5: The result of factor analysis loadings on Development Success Factors component. ......... 93
Table 5.6: The summary of Development Success Factors component. ............................................... 95
Table 5.7: Development barriers indicators ranked based on their means and standard deviations. . 97
Table 5.8: The result of factor analysis loadings on Development Barriers component. ..................... 98
Table 5.9: The summary of Development Barriers component. ......................................................... 100
Table 5.10: Owner participation indicators ranked based on their means and standard deviations. 102
Table 5.11: The result of factor analysis loadings on Owner Participation component. .................... 103
Table 5.12: The summary of Owner Participation component. .......................................................... 107
Table 5.13: Owner satisfaction indicators ranked based on their means and standard deviations. .. 109
Table 5.14: The result of factor analysis loadings on Owner Satisfaction component. ...................... 110
Table 5.15: The summary of Owner Satisfaction component. ........................................................... 112
Table 6.1: The comparison of the structural model (unfit) and structural model (fit) of development
success factors. ................................................................................................................................... 121
xv
Table 6.2: The comparison of the structural model (unfit) and structural model (fit) of development
barriers. .............................................................................................................................................. 124
Table 6.3: The comparison of the structural model (unfit) and structural model (fit) of owner
participation. ...................................................................................................................................... 126
Table 6.4: The comparison of the structural model (unfit) and structural model (fit) of owner
satisfaction. ........................................................................................................................................ 129
Table 6.5: The comparison between the merged structural model (unfit) and merged structural model
(fit). ..................................................................................................................................................... 134
Table 7.1: The data extraction from the original indicators in the merged structural model. ........... 148
Table 7.2: Data extraction from the proposed replacement indicators for the merged structural
model. ................................................................................................................................................ 150
Table 7.3: The substitution of indicators based on the analysis results of the semi-structured
interviews. .......................................................................................................................................... 156
Table 7.4: The comparison of the merged structural model and the final structural model of this
research. ............................................................................................................................................. 158
xvi
List of Abbreviations
3D – Three dimension
AAA – The initial of the fourth consultant & contractor participant during the semi-
structured interview session for this research
AGFI – Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index
AMOS – A computer software that performs structural equation modelling (SEM) to
build models.
AU$ - Australian Dollar or AUD (Conversion rate on 10/11/2012, AU$1 =
RM3.1812)
BK - The initial of the second owner participant during the semi-structured interview
session for this research
CAD – Computer Aided Design
CF – Certificate of Fitness
CFA - Confirmatory Factor Analysis
CFI – Comparative Fit Index
CIDB - Construction Development Industry Board, Malaysia
CMIN/DF – Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom
CSF - Critical Success Factors
DAP - Donour Assisted Program
DB – Development Barrier
DED - Department of Economic Development, Loudoun County
DLP – Defect Liability Period
DoSM – Department of Statistics, Malaysia
DSF – Development Success Factor
EFA - Exploratory Factor Analysis
EPC - Engineer, Procure, Construct
xvii
EPU – Economic Planning Unit
GDP – Gross Domestic Product
GFI – Goodness-of-Fit Index
GOF - Goodness-of-Fit
KPKT – Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan (Ministry of Housing and
Local Government, Malaysia)
LAD – Liquidated and Ascertain Damages
MEM - The initial of the second consultant & contractor participant during the semi-
structured interview session for this research
MHLG- Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Malaysia
MI – Modification Indices
ML – Maximum Likelihood
MMD - The initial of the first owner participant during the semi-structured interview
session for this research
NA - Not Available / Applicable
NAPIC – National Property Information Centre, Ministry of Finance, Malaysia
NMH - The initial of the first consultant & contractor participant during the semi-
structured interview session for this research
NSL - The initial of the third consultant & contractor participant during the semi-
structured interview session for this research
ODP - Owner Driven Program
OP – Owner Participation
OS – Owner Satisfaction
PAM – Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia (The Malaysian Architect Association)
PEPS – Association of Valuers, Property Managers, Estate Agents and Property
Consultants in the Private Sector
PKK – Pusat Khidmat Kontraktor (Contractor Services Centre, Ministry of Works,
Malaysia)
xviii
PMH - The initial of the fourth owner participant during the semi-structured
interview session for this research
PMOM – The Prime Minister's Office of Malaysia
PMS - The initial of the third owner participant during the semi-structured interview
session for this research
PWD –Public Works Department (Malaysia)
Q1 – Quarter One
Q2 – Quarter Two
Q3 – Quarter Three
Q4 – Quarter Four
QS – Quantity Surveyor
QA – Quality Assurance
REDHA – The Real Estate and Housing Developers’ Association of Malaysia
RFP - Request for Proposal
RM – Ringgit Malaysia or MYR (Conversion rate on 10/11/2012, RM1 =
AU$0.3144)
RMSEA – Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
RO – Research Objective(s)
RQ – Research Question(s)
SAAL - Serviço Ambulatório de Apoio Local (Local Support Ambulatory Service,
Portugal)
SAR - Stichting Architecten Reserch (Foundation for Architects' Research,
Netherlands)
SEM – Structural Equation Modelling
SOHO - Small Office Home Office
SPNB – Syarikat Perumahan Negara Berhad (The National Housing Company,
Malaysia)
SPSS - Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
xix
Std. Dev. – Standard Deviation
TAFREN - Task Force for Rebuilding the Nation, Sri Lanka
TLI – Tucker Lewis Index
UAE - United Arab Emirates
VPSD - Valuation and Property Services Department, Ministry of Finance, Malaysia
x2
– Chi-square
xx
Statement of Original Authorship
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet
requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the
best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously
published or written by another person except where due reference is made.
Signature:
Date: 10th
May 2013
xxi
Dedication
Assalamualaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh,
Jutaan syukur kepada Allah s.w.t. yang tiada sekutu bagiNya. Atas segala
nikmat dan kurniaNya buat ku selama ini dan terutama bagi penghasilan warkah ini
yang hanya cubaan fakir ini untuk mendapatkan pencerahan ke atas setitis ilmu dari
lautan ilmu yang hanyasanya milikNya.
Buat nenda Allahyarham Syed Taj Muhammad Bin Syed Fadhil Ahmad, telah
ku sempurnakan amanatmu. Buat ayahanda Allahyarham Syed Abdul Karim Bin
Syed Taj Muhammad, telah ku abadikan pengorbananmu. Juga buat adinda
Allahyarhamah Sharifah Fatimah Binti Syed Abdul Karim. Moga roh mereka
termasuk dalam golongan orang-orang yang beriman. Al-Fatihah.
Sesungguhnya solatku, ibadatku, hidupku, matiku adalah untuk Allah s.w.t.
Tuhan sekelian alam. Selawat dan salam buat junjungan Nabi Muhammad s.a.w.
yang dikurniakan kitab mukjizat akhir zaman, serta bagi ahli keluarga Baginda s.a.w.
Wassalamualaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh.
Penulis,
(SYED AHMAD QUSOIRI BIN SYED ABDUL KARIM)
Rabiul Awal 1434 / May 2013
Note: This dedication section was prepared in indigenous Malay language (or
Bahasa Malaysia) out of respect for my mother tongue. In short, it dedicates this
thesis to my late grandfather, my late father and my late sister.
xxii
Acknowledgements
First and foremost I would like to express my gratitude to my beloved mother,
Norhayati Haron, for her encouragement and moral support. I would also like to
express my deepest indebtedness to my wife, Salawati Murni Mohd. Sohaimi for her
sacrifice and patience and my three daughters, Sharifah Nur Batrisyia, Syarifah Nur
Qaisara and Sharifah Nur Amanina for their sacrifice during the entire duration of
this research journey. Many thanks to my sister, Sharifah Nor Suhaida Syed Abdul
Karim for believing in me and dear brother Syed Ahmad Rashidi Syed Abdul Karim
and wife Azrah Abdul Rahman and other family members for their never ending
support for my family and me.
I would like to express my utmost respect and appreciation to Assoc. Prof.
Bambang Trigunarsyah for his understanding, inspirational ideas and motivation for
me to complete my research. I would also like this opportunity to acknowledge Dr.
Fiona Lamari and Dr. Johnny Wong for their contributions in this research. Special
thanks to Candra Dharmayanti and Mohd. Saifulnizam Suhaimi for their guidance
and feedbacks on my work. Many thanks to The Association of Malaysian Students
Queensland (PPMQ), Brother Mohammad Al-Humaid of Darul Uloom Islamic
Academy of Brisbane, friends and other fellow research colleagues who supported
my family and me as we go through the good and bad times during this endeavour.
A token of gratitude to my sponsors, Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia
and Universiti Teknologi MARA for giving me a chance to embark on this life
changing journey.
Chapter 1: Introduction
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 RESEARCH PROBLEM
The growing economic prosperity amongst developing countries such as Malaysia had
given more choices to its populace. Given that the country's economy is growing at an
average rate of 7% per annum, the purchasing power of Malaysians are expected to rise with
an anticipated increase in the level of income per capita from RM6,099 (AU$1,918) in 1990
to RM14,788 (AU$4,649) in 2000 and projected to reach RM25,000 (AU$7,860) in the year
2020. With rising income and reduced poverty conditions, the consumption pattern is
expected to change. A substantial proportion of Malaysian society has become more affluent
and able to acquire quality houses with improved physical and social facilities (MHLG,
1999a, p. 2).
In this situation, the opportunity of owning a more exclusive housing provision is
opening up to many Malaysians. One of the most exclusive housing schemes available is the
detached housing scheme. In the second quarter of 2009, the number of detached housing
supply is ranked sixth (9%) of the overall Malaysian housing supply. However, in terms of its
median price the detached housing scheme had the second highest compared to other
available housing scheme in Malaysia. The Malaysian detached housing sector continues to
experience a marginal increase of between 0.1 to 2.7% every quarter (VPSD, 2005 - 2009, pp.
3-5). Regardless, the detached housing market grows to be an ‘exclusive’ housing market by
having the most rapid increase of price index compared to other residential products in
Malaysia (NAPIC, 2009, p. 1).
Being one of the medium to high cost housing development schemes, it is typical that
this sector of the housing market is dominated by the private sector (EPU, 2006, p. 439).
Compared to the housing schemes that are overseen by the Government, the detached housing
scheme is lacking in terms of policy and procedure especially in encouraging owner
participation during suitable developmental stages to ensure that the development would be a
successful undertaking.
The related parties must understand that the detached housing schemes are unique and
have the element of customability that corresponds exactly to individual housing
requirements (Noguchi & Hernàndez-Velasco, 2005, p. 330). This would require the owner’s
Chapter 1: Introduction
2
input especially during the design of the house (Folaranmi, 2012, p. 730). With the owner’s
participation, a better end product, one which reflects the needs and aspirations of the
residents better than the designer could by working on his own (Johnson, 1979, p. 30). By
involving the owners in the build in a methodological manner, the related parties could
minimise the development risks of time extensions, cost overruns and sub-standard materials
and workmanship in delivering a successful development project. However, the involvement
of owners does not have to be confined in design aspect but could also be involved other
aspects of the development such as contractual procedure, construction monitoring, progress
claims and quality control.
In terms of literature, there has been extensive research done in Malaysia on the
Government funded low-cost housing with its estimated gross sales volume of RM37 billion
(AU$11.63 billion) (Quarter 2, 2009) (VPSD, 2005 - 2009, p. 4). Unfortunately, for the
detached housing scheme, the related researches on the privately developed detached housing
scheme are somewhat scarce. It is estimated for the second quarter of 2009, the estimated
gross sales volume of detached housing scheme in Malaysia is reaching RM100 billion
(AU$31.44 billion) which counts over 15% of estimated gross sales volume of residential
products in Malaysia (VPSD, 2005 - 2009, pp. 3-5). Even with its estimated gross sales
volume that is 270% larger than the low-cost housing scheme, the resources available on the
development of detached housing scheme in Malaysia are extremely limited especially on the
topic of:
Detached housing development in Malaysia;
Success factors of detached housing development;
Importance of owner participation in detached housing development.
At present, there is no research focusing on the importance owner participation in
developing a detached housing project especially in Malaysia. This vacuum of knowledge has
left the detached housing development projects which are normally developed by private
developers vulnerable in terms of development speed, its cost and quality of the build which
would ultimately end the related parties in contractual dispute. Gillen (2004) highlights; “The
private house-building industry has been comparatively under-researched. As a consequence,
few either fully understand or appreciate the workings of this industry, its structure and its
principal agencies”.
Chapter 1: Introduction
3
In spite of being such a unique and valuable segment of the residential property market,
the fact still stands that the detached housing scheme in Malaysia is still under-researched.
Unless proper guideline for a successful detached housing development are developed,
problems in terms of design, contractual arrangements, legislation and construction are still a
problem for the owner as well other parties consequently hindering the popularity of detached
housing projects in Malaysia. At the same time the experience of getting directly involved
with the development would deliver a great deal of satisfaction to the owners themselves.
The main argument that is being addressed is that the participation of detached house
owners shall significantly reduce development risks and contributes to the success of
detached housing developments in Malaysia.
1.2 RESEARCH AIM
The aim of this research is to develop a guideline to improve owner participation for a
successful detached housing development project in Malaysia.
This research shall have a significant effect on detached housing sector in Malaysia.
First of all, the detached housing scheme is the second largest housing scheme in terms of its
Gross Sales Volume (number of properties multiplied by median house price) in Malaysia
(refer Figure 2.13, Section 2.3.2). For the owners who are not familiar with this type of
development, they are left vulnerable to the decision that the professionals make in terms of
duration, cost and quality of the build. The existence of development contract would only
serve the interest of the owners once the mistake had been made and identified and by that
time, it would be a time and money consuming process to rectify the problem. Therefore, this
research is significant in providing caution for future detached house owners in Malaysia
before they embark in the journey of developing their own detached housing project. This
could be achieved by informing the future house owners on the developmental issues that
they need to be aware of at every development stage of their detached house project.
1.3 THESIS OUTLINE
To achieve the Research Aim, the thesis starts with two literature review chapters in
this thesis. Chapter 2 reviews the detached housing scheme as one of the housing options
available in the property market today. Firstly, it defines the classification of detached
housing scheme and how it differs from other types of housing scheme. Then it highlights the
development success factors and development barriers that are usually present in this type of
Chapter 1: Introduction
4
housing scheme. This chapter then goes into the Malaysian detached housing market. It gives
a general overview on the Malaysian residential property market and then focuses on the local
development trend of detached houses. Finally this chapter identified the research gaps on the
importance of owner participation and the success factors of detached housing development.
Chapter 3 focuses on the owner and how he/she affects the success of development
projects. Firstly, this chapter explores the subject of success in the development sector. Next,
it emphasises on the concept of owner participation especially in development projects. This
includes the general role of owners in construction projects, owner participation in housing
development projects and the challenges for owner participation in development projects in
the future.
Based on the literature review chapters, Chapter 4 set the conceptual framework of the
research that lead to the establishment of three research questions (RQ) that were used to
translate the research problem:
RQ1: What are the critical factors that influence the success of detached house
development?
RQ2: How would owner participation affect the development success of their
detached house?
RQ3: What is the best approach for owners to participate in developing their
detached housing project in Malaysia?
The methods for answering these research questions were then selected. The methods
comprise of a mixed method approach. A mixed method approach utilises both of the
quantitative and qualitative approaches. RQ1 and RQ2 shall be addressed using the
quantitative approach while RQ3 by utilising the qualitative approach. In the quantitative
approach, the responses of the questionnaire survey was analysed using descriptive analysis,
factor analysis and structural equation modelling. This process was made smoother through
the usage of SPSS and AMOS software. For the qualitative approach, transcribed responses
of the semi-structured interviews were analysed through content analysis. This process was
done by utilising the QSR Nvivo software. The results of the quantitative approach shall be
compared, improved and validated by the qualitative approach.
Chapter 5 firstly addresses the descriptive results of the questionnaire survey results.
Later, it groups the indicators that had been graded by the respondents. The indicators from
Chapter 1: Introduction
5
the criteria of ‘Development Success Factors’, ‘Development Barriers’, ‘Owner participation’
and ‘Owner Satisfaction’ were analysed through the means of Factor Analysis. The grouping
was then analysed further in the next chapter.
Chapter 6 reports the results of the factor analysis from the previous chapter through
“Structural Equation Modelling” or SEM. Each of the criteria was separately analysed to
ensure a good fit. After that, the four criteria were merged to create an estimated model and
analysed again for a good fit. The indicators that made it to the estimated model were
correlated to the results of the semi-structured interview in the next chapter.
Chapter 7 explains the interview process which includes the selection of the
interviewees, the interview guide and the related analysis. The results of the interview were
correlated to the indicators of the merged model in the previous chapter. Any indicators in the
model that had not been mentioned even once in the interview were replaced with another
attribute (in the same construct) that was mentioned in the interview. This process produced
the final structural model for this research.
Chapter 8 discusses the results of the research results as well as the implications from
the findings. It publishes the contributions and implications of this research.
Chapter 9 provides overall conclusions. It highlights research contributions and
implications especially for the Malaysian housing sector. Some of the limitations of this
research and recommendations for possible future research directions are also described in
this chapter.
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
6
CHAPTER 2: GLOBAL AND MALAYSIAN
DETACHED HOUSING SECTOR
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The previous chapter provided an introduction to the background of this research. This
chapter provides an overview of the current literature on detached housing development and
the current practice of detached housing scheme in the global and Malaysian contexts.
This chapter contains four main sections. After the introductory section, Section 2 of
this chapter identifies critical factors in ensuring the success of development projects. It also
includes the identification of success factors and barriers of detached housing development
projects. This is to ensure the achievement of the detached housing development’s goals set
out by the related parties. This literature review is followed by the Section 3 which will
emphasise on an exclusive housing scheme in Malaysia that is the detached housing scheme.
This includes detached housing classification, the significance of detached housing scheme in
the overall Malaysian residential real estate market and an analysis of the current
development trend of detached housing scheme in Malaysia. This chapter is closed by the
Section 4 which is the summary section.
2.2 DETACHED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
This section elaborates on the detached housing scheme as a whole, its success factors
and barriers in implementing its successful development. The identification of detached
housing scheme is important to differentiate it from other residential products available that
lead to different developmental requirements. The early identification of project success and
barriers are also crucial as a goal and parameter for the related parties to work on through the
whole duration of the development.
2.2.1 Detached Housing Scheme
There are many classifications of houses. One way of classifying houses is by the
design and quantity of the build. For example mass houses are built with a predetermined
design and built in great numbers to accommodate the housing needs of the majority.
Ahadzie, Proverns and Olomolaiye (2008, p. 676) defines Mass House Building Projects
(MHBP) as ‘‘the design and construction of speculative standardised house-units usually in
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
7
the same location and executed within the same project scheme’’. Typically, mass houses
include apartments, flats, condominiums, terrace houses, townhouses, row houses, cluster
houses and semi-detached houses.
In the other hand, there are the custom built houses. These types of houses are built
specifically to cater the needs and demand of its owner. They are known as bungalows or the
academic term ‘detached houses’. There are a number of detached housing classifications.
According to Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI) (2009), a detached
house is a single house that is owned by 1 or more persons. The Northern California Land
Trust (NCLT) identifies them as a single family home which are considered as the most
lavish types of house available due to its high development cost. Those who purchase single
family homes which are developed by NCLT are usually those who earn between 60% to
80% more than the area’s median income (NCLT, 2009, p. 1).
The exclusiveness of detached housing is in accordance to what had been suggested by
Vastergaad (2006, p. 6) who reported that the owner-occupied single-family house is
regarded as the ideal form of housing in Denmark, the top rung of the housing ladder for
households. About 40% of the 2.4 million housing units are detached single-family houses,
and about 90% of these are owner-occupied.
Noguchi and Hernàndez-Velasco (2005, p. 334) categorised houses in terms of its
standardisation and customisation level. Normally the higher the standardisation level of a
housing scheme, the lower it would be able to be customised in accordance to the owner’s
preference. A detached house is likely to have the components of customisation which
correspond to the owner’s housing requirements. Referring to Figure 2.1, the detached houses
would fall into the category of semi-custom and custom home. Noguchi and Hernàndez-
Velasco (2005, p. 330) continued by quoting Smith (1998) who further explained that the
custom-built homes would require longer time to build combined, with lost economies of
large-volume work leads to the higher prices, typical for custom homes.
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
8
Figure 2.1: Standardisation - customisation relationship compared by housing type.
Adapted from “A `mass custom design' approach to upgrading conventional housing
development in Mexico” by Noguchi, M., & Hernàndez-Velasco, C. R., (2005), Habitat
International, 29(2), p. 334.
Detached housing is considered by many as pinnacle of housing types. The popularity is
naturally stimulated by social trends such as increasing prosperity and individualisation, it is a
response to the failure of mass housing to meet many of the needs and preferences of its
occupants (Tisma, Bijlsma & Dammers, 2007, p. 1).
Referring to Table 2.1, in the more developed countries like Denmark, the supply of
detached houses totals up to 41% of the entire housing supplied in 1999 and 90% of these
detached houses are owner-occupied. Even if the number of detached housing schemes may
not be as much as other mass housing schemes, the sheer value of this housing market and its
increasing popularity makes it a significant segment of the general housing market
(Vestergaard, 2006, p. 6).
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
9
Table 2.1: Housing stock by type of building and type of tenure in Denmark (as of 1
January 1999).
Source: Adapted from “Single-family detached housing - A branch of paradise or a
problem?” by Vestergaard, H., (2006), Hoersholm: Delft University Press, p. 6.
However, the popularity of detached-housing schemes is directly dependent on a
nation’s the economic prosperity and political stability. In Thailand, the political unrest and
economic slowdown have significant negative effect towards the higher-end products of its
real estate sector. In addition, the overstock of previous detached house results on the
decrease in the overall launch of new detached house in the country (Marohabutr, 2008, p.
15). Even in the capital city of Malaysia, the prices of luxury detached houses had fell by no
less than 38% after the Asian Financial Crisis between 1997 and 1999 (GPG, 2010para. ?).
This is confirmed by Agus (2002, p. 63) who reported that by housing category, there were
decreases in prices of 10.2 % for detached houses and 6.7 %for semi-detached, while terraced
houses, priced at RM 150,000 and below, experienced a drop of 5.1%.
In other instances, Denmark has a dual housing market, one for rented housing (mainly
flats) and one for owner-occupied housing (mainly single-family detached houses). The
division of work between the two markets has been as follows; when the economy is in high
gear, owner-occupied housing goes up and rented flats in social housing become vacant;
when the economy is going down the reverse situation occurs (Vestergaard, 2006, p. 13).
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
10
The emergence of new types of modern housing such as apartments and condominiums
also has a negative impact on the development of detached housing. Factors causing the shift
of popularity from detached houses to condominiums include higher land price, rising
inflation, increase of fuel price, traffic problems and improvement in mass transit network.
People who need more convenience tend to purchase condominiums located along mass
transit routes. Otherwise they have to bear higher cost of living and inconvenience if they opt
for buying detached houses and townhouses located in the suburbs (Marohabutr, 2008, p. 13).
The factors driving demand preferences for detached housing are constantly changing
and difficult to measure, and often deemed to be a complex bundle of attributes (Reed &
Mills, 2007, p. 225). Whatever the preferences is, detached houses continue to become a
desirable residential option. A lot more households would like to occupy such properties if
they did not have budget restrictions making it impossible. Vestergaard (2006, p. 7) quoted
Statens Byggeforskningsinstitut & Amternes og Kommunernes Forskningsinstitut (2001) on a
representative survey of housing preferences. In 2001 it showed that 46% of all tenants
wanted to move to an owner occupied house within five years. In a similar survey in 1986 the
figure was 29%. Altogether more than 70% of Danes wanted to be or become owner-
occupiers within five years of 2001.
Referring to Table 2.2, The Loudoun County Department of Economic Development
forecasts that starting from 2008 single-family detached units would still continue to grow.
By the end of 2040, it is forecasted that the development rate of these units decrease in most
subareas, with some planning subareas in the west of the county will continue to rise.
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
11
Table 2.2: Single-Family Detached Housing Trends by Planning Subarea, 2000 – 2040. Loudoun County, Virginia.
Source: Adapted from “Single-Family Detached Housing Unit Trends by Planning Subarea” by DED, (2000), Loudoun County
Department of Economic Development, p. 1.
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
12
The demand for detached houses is likely to continue to grow in liaison with the
economic prosperity of the world. Already numerous housing developers all over the world
are announcing greater allocation for the development of detached houses for many years to
come (Anonymous, 2004, line 2; Chitsomboon, 2006, line 11; Rachelle, 2006, line 4).
2.2.2 Success Factors of Detached Housing Development Projects
The relationship among the key stakeholders (project owners, designers, contractors,
and other related departments who are directly or indirectly involved) is the most important
criterion of project success (Elizabeth Collins, Curley, Clay & Lara, 2005, p. 58; Wei Tong &
Tung-Tsan, 2007, p. 479; Xiaojin & Jing, 2006, p. 258). In addition, the determination of
project success in the early stages of a project is crucial due to the fact that it provides in the
formulation of the goals of the project. Therefore, failure of the stakeholders to agree on the
priority of measures of success will be a barrier to effective client–contractor working
relationships and commonplace amongst failed projects (Bryde & Robinson, 2005, p. 627).
In order to plan and manage a successful project, the three parameters of time, cost and
quality should be considered (Bowen, Cattel, Hall, Edwards & Pearl, 2002, p. 48). These
parameters are the most basic success criteria for any construction projects. Comprehensively,
the stakeholders must ensure that the project is steered in a way that the project would be
able:
to be completed within the allocated time;
to be managed under or at par with the proposed budget;
to maintain quality by adhering to the allocations in the contract.
The developer (owner), through a contract, stipulates that a contractor should finish the
work within a specific period of time, at an agreed price and at a certain standard of
workmanship. However, these seem to be conflicting goals running in three different
directions (Figure 2.2). In the construction industry, ‘cost’ directly burns up the profit of a
contractor, ’time’ can be converted into costs by liquidated damages and time dependent
preliminaries, while ‘quality’ alone does not, in the short term, represent cost to a contractor
if the poor quality work slips through inspections unnoticed (Tam, Deng, Zeng & Ho, 2000,
p. 438). However Westerveld (2003, p. 412) perceived that complying project success with
time, cost and quality constraints is a more ‘narrow’ view of the matter.
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
13
Figure 2.2: The eternal triangle between cost, time and quality. Adapted from “Quest
for continuous quality improvement for public housing construction in Hong Kong,” by Tam,
C. M., Deng, Z. M., Zeng, S. X., & Ho, C. S., (2000), Construction Management &
Economics, 18(4), p. 438.
While many considered time, cost and quality as the most predominant success criteria
other measures such as safety, functionality and satisfaction are also attracting increasing
attention (Chan & Chan, 2004, p. 219).
Ahadzie, Proverbs & Olomolaiye (2008, p. 678) quoted Pinto & Slevin (1988) in
describing 15 potential success criteria for MHSPs (see Figure 2.3). This model is much more
thorough in describing the specific criteria compared to the model by Kharbanda, Stallworthy
& Williams which only focuses on the aspect of time, cost and quality. The framework in
Figure 2.3 tries to differentiate the success criteria between two major parties of a
development project that is the party that manages the project and its customer. The result is
the addition of other aspects of success factors had been included in this framework such as
technology transfer, risk, health and safety, environmental and customer satisfaction.
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
14
Figure 2.3: Project success framework for Mass-Housing Building Projects (MHBPs).
Adapted from “Critical success criteria for mass house building projects in developing
countries”, by Ahadzie, D. K., Proverbs, D. G., & Olomolaiye, P. O., (2008), International
Journal of Project Management, 26(6), 678.
In the local Malaysian sector, an extensive research had been done by Al-Tmeemy,
Abdul-Rahman and Harun (2010, p. 5) in defining success criteria for building projects in
Malaysia. This research compiled Project Success Models from numerous authors and had
come up with the guideline above. They tested 13 success criteria which include Cost, Time,
Quality, Safety, Achieving Scope, Customer Satisfaction, Technical Specifications,
Functional Requirements, Market Share, Competitive Advantage, Reputation, Revenue and
Profits and Benefit to Stakeholder.
Fortune & White (2006, pp. 55-56) had compiled a list of 27 critical success factors
from 397 literatures. The top ten critical success factors that were most cited according to
Fortune & White (2006, pp. 55-56) was “support from senior management”, “clear realistic
objectives”, “strong/detailed plan kept up to date”, “good communication/feedback”,
“user/client involvement”, “skilled/suitably qualified/sufficient staff/team”, “effective change
management”, “competent project manager”, “strong business case/sound basis for project”
and “sufficient/well allocated resources”. Even with this immense compilation of data, the
research’s findings highlighted that there is a lot of overlap between sets but the factors
selected for inclusion in individual lists vary to a considerable extent. This is due to the fact
that the ‘success criteria’ varies from one party to another according to their role and interest
in a particular project.
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
15
To put all these success factors in perspective it needs to be assigned into specific
developmental phase of a project. Figure 2.4 illustrate an attempt to connect success factors to
a particular development phase had been done by Lim & Mohamed (1999, p. 245). The figure
explains the importance of project success to project owners and stakeholders from a macro
viewpoint. In this particular case, the completion and satisfaction are the criteria (goals)
determining project success. The two criteria are influenced by sets of success factors
depending on the project phase. In other words, each of the project phases had a particular set
of success factors in achieving the project criteria (goals).
Figure 2.4: Building blocks of project life cycle. Adapted from “Criteria of project
success: an exploratory re-examination,” by Lim, C. S., & Mohamed, M. Z., (1999),
International Journal of Project Management, 17(4), p. 245.
T. Van Aken (1996) even defines project success as “The satisfaction of all
stakeholders”. Therefore, the ideal outcome of a successful project is a win-win situation for
every parties involved in it. This rarely being the case, due to risks that may result in losses.
In reality, the owner / developer and contractor would consider a project to be successful as
long as their respective objective are being achieved (Lim & Mohamed, 1999, p. 244).
2.2.3 Barriers in the Successful Development of Detached Housing Projects
No construction project will ever be risk free (Groton & Smith, 1998, p. 69). Delivering
a project on time and under budget has always been complex and risky proposition. Owners
have to consider issues of assigning and sharing of risk, conflict of interest, bonus clauses,
designers as agents, designers as vendors, partnering and many others (Kluenker, 1996, p.
20).
Risk management in construction projects involves risk management planning, risk
identification, risk assessment, risk analysis, risk response, risk monitoring and risk
communication (Baloi & Price, 2003, p. 262). The concept of risk is an uncertain event that,
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
16
if it occurs, has a positive (opportunities) or negative (threats) that effect on a project
objective (Del Cano & De La Cruz, 2002, p. 474).
According to Ale (2002, p. 108), risks are non-zero and cannot be made zero.
Regulation risks on the basis of this principle, creates the necessity to know the magnitude of
risks and to limit the acceptability of these risks by setting finite, non-zero standards. The
systematic dealing with risks is called risk management. He further explained that risk
management in this context is divided into four phases (Figure 2.5). In the risk management
process, the decision process is not so much a phase, but a demarcation between the more
analytical part of the process and the more managerial part of the process.
Figure 2.5: The risk management process. Adapted from “Risk assessment practices in
The Netherlands,” by Ale, B. J. M., (2002), Safety Science, 40(1-4), p. 108.
Del Cano and De La Cruz (2002, p. 484) highlights the importance for any Project Risk
Management (PRM) plan to take into account the organization’s risk maturity and the project
complexity and size, among other factors. Similar criteria must be taken into account in
relation to the risk analysis techniques used in the process.
The allocation of risks between the owner and the builder (contractor) in any
construction project can be determined by the type of procurement used. Figure 2.6 illustrates
the types of project execution (procurement) methods available and the degree of risk
exposure to the owners and contractor. In turnkey contracts, it is easy for the owner to define
liability (risks) due to the contractor’s responsibility for the whole project. Ironically, the lack
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
17
of owner participation is one of the most frequently highlighted disadvantages of turnkey
contracts in many citations (Ribeiro Ferreira & Rogerson, 1999, p. 405).
Figure 2.6: Alternative project execution approaches. Adapted from “Which project-
execution approach is best for you?,” by Ireland, T, (2001), IEEE Industry Applications
Magazine, 7(6), p. 34.
Any development project is a complex process. It involves a number of key stages, each
of which carries its own risks. Risk is inherent in all project undertakings, as such it can never
be fully eliminated, although can be effectively managed to mitigate the impacts to the
achievement of project’s goals (Nieto-Morote & Ruz-Vila, 2010, p. 1). As any other types of
development, detached housing development projects are also vulnerable to many sorts of
development risks. These risks need to be managed by the stakeholder to avoid unnecessary
dispute in the long run.
Figure 2.7 represents a model of development stages and the associated risks involved
for a Private Housing Developer. As the build progress, the financial exposure increases thus
increasing the risk. To reduce the financial exposure, private developers tend to market their
products as early as possible, sometimes even before the build stage begins. For the private
house owners, they could leave out some of the development stage but unlike the private
developers, they could not reduce their financial exposure by selling off the build. An
alternative solution is needed so that both of the parties could share the risks thus ensuring
that both parties would work together in order to make the build a success.
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
18
Figure 2.7: Risks and the development process. Adapted from “Delivering New Homes.
Processes, planners and providers,” by Carmona, M., Carmona, S., & Gallent, N., (2003),
(1st. ed.) London, UK: Routledge, p. 72.
For example, in the design stage the development plan of the detached house must
individually comply with building regulations as well as the design guidelines set by the local
authority. Without this compliance, it is unlikely that the local authority will give their
consent (through the approval of planning permission) thus risking the development in terms
of delay.
2.2.4 Owner Satisfaction in Measuring Development Success
From the extensive arguments on the development success factors, it could be
concluded that there were many indicators that can be used to indicate project success. While
many considered that time, cost and quality as the most predominant success criteria other
measures such as safety, functionality and satisfaction are attracting increasing attention
(Chan & Chan, 2004, p. 219). More and more researches are including customer / client /
owner satisfaction in their argument of development success criteria.
In the overall scheme of things, what is truly relevant is not that the project eventually
is finalised in time and according to the budget, but that the customer is satisfied with the
overall experience of the company (Carù, Cova & Pace, 2004, p. 532). This is due to the fact
that the project owners play the most important role in determining project success (Xiaojin
& Jing, 2006, p. 253). This means addressing the importance placed on customer
requirements and on meeting their needs. Also, the level of perceived success seems to be
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
19
correlated to the level of the users' satisfaction level. The higher the level of user satisfaction,
the higher the level of perceived success of the project (Lim & Mohamed, 1999, p. 246). This
is where the owner participation as the project progresses becomes vital part of the success
criterion where only through total customer satisfaction; the project can be truly considered as
successful.
In an extreme case, a landmark shopping development project in the capital city of
Malaysia had taken three extra months and an extra RM46 million (AU$11.32 million) to be
completed. The problem had become a contractual dispute between the developer and
contractor who had suffered considerable losses. However, in the terms of the stakeholders
and users point of view, the development was a success due to its remarkable popularity
amongst tenants and shoppers (Lim & Mohamed, 1999, p. 243). Another famous example is
the Sydney Opera House. Even though the project was completed ten years late and over-
budget by more than fourteen times, it had become one of the most iconic buildings of the
20th
century (Filmer, 2006, p. 248).
Due to the significantly long lasting effect of customer / client / owner satisfaction
towards the determination of project success, the indicator shall be applied as the primary
indicator to determine a successful detached housing development.
2.3 CURRENT PRACTICE OF DETACHED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN
MALAYSIA
This section discusses the significance of residential property market with the focus on
detached housing market in Malaysia.
2.3.1 Overview of Residential Property Market in Malaysia
One of the products of the construction industry is the residential property. Residential
property (or housing) is a major concern for all people in every corner of the world as the
wellbeing of a country is reflected in its people enjoying a certain standard of living. Housing
provides shelter as well as being a major potential for expanding the construction industry,
generating jobs and contributing to capital formation.
The construction industry is complex in its nature because it comprises large numbers
of parties as owners, consultants, contractors, suppliers, financiers and regulators. Despite this
complexity, the industry plays a major role as the in the development of a country due to the
fact that it provides investment goods which is vital for the growth of other industries.
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
20
As a developing country, the Malaysian population continues to grow at an average of
2.22% (1998 – 2008s) (DoSM, 2010). The need for quality residential products has never
been greater as more middle-class Malaysians acquire better income due to the nation’s
economic prosperity. This scenario gives them more choices in choosing or upgrading to a
better residence. According to Tan (2008, p. 326) homeownership (in Malaysia) is strongly
correlated with income, education, stage in life cycle, the existence of children, employment
types, EPF withdrawals, liquidity constraint, and relative price of owning. The mobility of
households widens as higher income clearly widens the likelihood of moving into bigger and
better houses.
Referring to Figure 2.8, the Malaysian construction industry (including housing)
contributes between 2.9% to 4.0% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Malaysia (1998 –
2008) even when the industry is experiencing negative growth (CIDB, 2010, p. 1). This is
typical for a developing country because according to Ofori and Han (2003, p. 38) who
quoted Turin (1973) concluded that while the developed countries had stronger construction
industries which contributed 5% – 8% of GDP, in the less developed (developing) countries
the proportion was 3–5% of GDP. This indicates that the industry still plays a significance
role in sustaining the Malaysian economic growth in terms of providing necessary
infrastructure and facilities for the consumption of other industries.
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
21
Figure 2.8: Construction Sector Growth and Malaysian Economic Trend (Constant Price) for Year 1980 - Q1 2009. Adapted from
“Construction Economic Indicator,” by CIDB, (2010), Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia, p. 1.
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
22
In Malaysia, residential property sector is a significant part of its property market.
According to Figure 2.9, the residential property sector had maintained a relatively high
market performance since 2001. In this context, “performance” is referring to the “value of
construction work done”. According to the Department of Statistics, Malaysia (2012, p. 36),
value of construction work done is defined as “value for construction work done includes new
work, capital repairs, restorations, conversions and current repairs and maintenances which
were carried out during the reference period for the owner or investor of the project”. Figure
2.9 shows that the residential property consistently outperforms its closest rival (the
commercial property) at an average 2.8 times to 1 (NAPIC, 2009, p. 19). This proves the
residential market’s significance in the overall property market in Malaysia.
Figure 2.9: “Performance of Different Property Sectors in Malaysia (2001 – 2008),”
Adapted from “NAPIC Overall Statistics,” by NAPIC, Valuation and Property Services
Department, Ministry of Finance Malaysia, (2009), p. 19.
In terms of supply, the residential property continues to display excellent growth.
According to the President of the Association of Valuers, Property Managers, Estate Agents
and Property Consultants in the Private Sector (PEPS), property transactions for 2010 were
expected to be better than 2009 with the residential sector would see the biggest growth
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Val
ue
- R
M M
illio
n
Year
Performance of Malaysian Property Sectors
Residential Commercial Industrial
Agricultural Land Development Others
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
23
(GPG, 2010, para. 2). With the recovery of the economy in 2010, the property market will
also experience a slow, steady recovery (Clancy, 2009, para. 4).
Being one of the most fundamental aspects of Malaysian social infrastructure, the
Malaysian Government had been dedicated and continues to provide housing infrastructure
for the masses. Reference to the housing governance has been primarily about domestic and
social policy issues (Forrest, 2008, p. 5). Housing provision in Malaysia is crucial in order to
ensure socio-economic stability and to promote national development (Idrus & Siong, 2008,
p. 1). It also provides shelter as well as being a major potential for expanding the construction
industry, generating jobs and contributing to capital formation (MHLG, 1999b, p. 1). The
rapid growth of Malaysian economy requires the Government to keep pace by establishing a
number of settlement policies. In the 9th
Malaysia Plan, Thrust Four (Providing Quality
Housing and Urban Services) emphasise that continuous effort will be undertaken to ensure
that Malaysians of all income level will have access to adequate, quality and affordable
homes, particularly the low-income group (EPU, 2006, p. 437).
The Malaysian private housing sector is unique in many ways. According to Datuk Seri
Najib Tun Razak (6th
Malaysian Prime Minister) in the 39th
Anniversary Dinner of the Real
Estate and Housing Developers’ Association Malaysia (REHDA), it is about the only industry
that is not a pure economic venture but also bears the responsibility of fulfilling the nation’s
social reengineering agenda. Through its low cost, low medium cost and medium cost
housing policies, as well as Bumiputera (Indigenous Malaysians) quota and discounts, the
industry has played a very crucial part in meeting not only the Rakyat’s (Malaysian people’s)
homeownership aspirations but also playing a socio-economic role (PMOM, 2009, para. 11).
The implementation of these policies is undertaken by the Ministry of Housing and
Local Government. The ministry is responsible to ensure that the Government’s housing
policy especially regarding the low-cost and medium low-cost is fully implemented to
facilitate the low and medium-low income groups are provided with the option of affordable
housing (Mahamud & Abdul Ghani, 2004, p. 8). However there is a delicate balance in play
here. The ministry have the need to genuinely protect the interest of the house buyers but at
the same time does not want to be too “interfering” that they would end up “suffocating” the
nation’s housing market (Zamhari, 2008, p. 14). The Government also can be a key player of
“unsuffocating” the housing market in times of economic downturn. During the recent 1998
global economic turmoil, the Malaysian Government had played its role to boost the
country’s development sector by allocating RM1.2 billion (AU$0.38 billion) as a part of the
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
24
2009 Malaysian Economic Stimulus Package to build more low and medium-cost houses
(Anonymous, 2008, para. 7). This endeavour according to Che Ibrahim (2005, p. 1) is one of
the factors that could generate the growth of the nation’s construction industry.
Referring to Table 2.3, it can be highlighted that the Malaysian Government continues
to focus on public sector housing programmes which provide special housing for the poor as
well as low-cost houses for the low-income group that will eliminate the problem of squatters
in urban areas. Ong and Lenard (2002, p. 6) defines low-cost housing are houses that have a
ceiling price of RM25,000 (AU$7,860) per unit or less, which can only be sold to households
with monthly income of between RM500 (AU$78.60) and RM750 (AU$235.80). The types
of houses delivered under this programme may include flats, terrace or single –unit village
houses (known locally as “kampong houses”). Each low-cost house must have a minimum
built-up area of 550 – 600 square feet comprising two bedrooms, a living room, a kitchen and
a bathroom-cum-toilet.
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
25
Table 2.3 Public and private sector housing targets and achievement, 2001 – 2005.
Source: Adapted from “Ninth Malaysia Plan, 2006-2010” by EPU, (2006), Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister's Department
Malaysia, p. 439.
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
26
One of the ways of the Malaysian Government’s drive to provide low-cost houses is
through the National Housing Corporation which is a subsidiary of the Ministry of Finance
(Malaysia) Incorporated with its own objective to be a leader in the development of quality
affordable homes for all Malaysians (SPNB, 2009, para. 2). In spite of everything, public
sector performance especially the low cost housing is affected by problems ranging from
planning variables to implementation, such as frequent changes in the scope and location of
projects, high development standards, delays in the issuance of loans, difficulties faced in the
retrieval of instalments from buyers, high prices of land and provision of infrastructure. As an
alternative, the Government has sought the cooperation of the private sector to address the
housing needs of the lower income groups (KPKT, 1999, p. 2).
The private sector had always been more inclined towards delivering medium and high
cost houses in view of greater margins from that market segment (MHLG, 1999a, para. 4).
Being the case, the private sector is still required by the Government to fulfil their quota in
developing low-cost houses. This state of affairs is corroborated by Ezeanya (2004, p. 11) that
affirm that it is the government resolves to supply houses for the rural population through
programs such as funding home improvement projects. The private sector construction
industry has been able to supply houses at market prices for medium income and high-income
groups (EPU, 2006, p. 439).
The formal private sector undoubtedly has a potential role in developing housing
developments for the higher income groups of the low and middle income population. It is
highly unlikely that in many developing countries the formal private sector can reach the
lowest levels of the low income population (Keivani & Werna, 2001, p. 111). Then again at
present there’s a clear amiss-match of low medium cost housing (including detached houses)
in Malaysia due to the fact that there’s no incentives to the developers by the government to
develop this kind of houses, unclear housing development plan for this house category, no
design specifications for low medium cost housing, no control over sales – price go high due
to speculators, lack of monitoring during construction and most of the projects are delayed
due to the economic downturn in 1998 (Shuid, 2004, p. 11).
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
27
2.3.2 Development Trend of Detached Housing Scheme in Malaysia
The aim of this literature analysis is to determine the development trend of detached
housing scheme in the Malaysian residential property market. For this research, statistical
data from relevant authority had been acquired to observe the trend. Relevant statistical
analysis had been used and the information derived from the exercise significantly highlights
the standing of detached housing in the overall Malaysian residential real estate market.
The following analysis had been prepared from the data derived from the Residential
Stock Property Report compiled by the Valuation and Property Services Department,
Ministry of Finance Malaysia (VPSD, 2005 - 2009, pp. 3-5). The most recent report
published by this department in their website at the time of this section was being prepared is
the Residential Stock Property Report (Third Quarter of 2009). However, this data set mostly
consists of preliminary figures. To analyse the actual trend of the market, data from the
previous quarter (Second Quarter of 2009) had been utilised for the trend analysis in this
section.
There are numerous types of housing that are being offered in the Malaysian residential
market. They can be divided into four main groups namely (NAPIC, 2009, p. 1):
Terrace;
High-rise;
Detached;
Semi-Detached.
These four main housing groups can be separated into more detailed classification of
residential products. They include (VPSD, 2005 - 2009, pp. 3-5):
Terrace house (Single storey up to 3 storeys high);
Semi-detached house (Single storey up to 3 storeys high);
Detached house;
Town house;
Cluster house;
Low cost house;
Low cost flat;
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
28
Flat;
Service apartment;
Condominium / Apartment;
SOHO.
The SOHO classification is a new type of housing classification in the Malaysian
property market. According to the correspondence with Mrs. Ong Chwee Hoon (2010, para.
2), Deputy Director of NAPIC (Stock Sector), SOHO stands for Small Office Home Office.
This property combines a shop/office with a residential into one building which is considered
as one unit and only has one ownership claim. However, referring to the data set there are no
available figures on SOHO to be found. Therefore, the SOHO category shall be omitted from
this analysis.
Referring Figure 2.10, in terms of residential supply, detached houses have been ranked
between fourth to sixth with about 400,000 units supplied all over Malaysia. Overall, the most
popular house built in this period was the terrace houses (rank 1 and 2) followed by the low
cost housing schemes (rank 3) as well as the growing popularity of high rise residential
schemes such as the low cost flat and condominiums / apartments. It seems that the mass
housing such as terraced, low-cost houses and flats, condominiums/apartments continues to
play a major role in providing accommodation the majority of Malaysians between 2005 and
2009. In contrast, semi-detached, detached, cluster houses and town houses generally built in
lesser numbers providing a marginal supply of accommodation for the same period (VPSD,
2005 - 2009, pp. 3-5).
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
29
Figure 2.10: Supply of Residential Units by Type in Malaysia 2005 – 2009 (Existing
Stock). Adapted from “Quarterly Residential Property Stock Report,” by Valuation and
Property Services Department, Ministry of Finance Malaysia (2005 - 2009), pp. 3-5.
Figure 2.11 shows how the detached houses in Malaysia have the biggest range of price
starting off at an affordable price of RM56,000 (AU$17,606) up to RM5.4 million (AU$1.70
million); the highest residential unit price in Malaysia for quarter 2 2009. This is followed by
the condominium / apartment market sector with the highest unit price at RM3.3 million
(AU$1.04 million) and the 2 – 3 Storey Semi-Detached at RM3.0 million (AU$0.94 million).
The outliers of these three high-end properties had made it impossible to observe the
distribution of others. To observe the actual distribution of price for the detached houses
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,000,000
Q1
20
05
Q2
20
05
Q3
20
05
Q4
20
05
Q1
20
06
Q2
20
06
Q3
20
06
Q4
20
06
Q1
20
07
Q2
20
07
Q3
20
07
Q4
20
07
Q1
20
08
Q2
20
08
Q3
20
08
Q4
20
08
Q1
20
09
Q2
20
09
Q3
20
09
Q4
20
09
Re
sed
en
tial
Un
its
(Nu
mb
ers
)
Summary of Supply of Residential Units by Type in Malaysia 2005 - 2009 (Existing
Stock)
Single Storey Terraced 2-3 Storey Terraced
Single Storey Semi-Detached 2-3 Storey Semi Detached
Detached Town House
Cluster Low Cost House
Low Cost Flat Flat
Service Apartment Condominium / Apartment
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
30
compared to other housing types, the outliers need to be omitted from the graph which is
revealed in Figure 2.12.
Legend:
SST (Single Storey Terraced)
TST (2-3 Storey Terraced)
SSSD (Single Storey Semi-Detached)
TSSD (2-3 Storey Semi-Detached)
D (Detached)
C (Cluster)
LCH (Low-Cost House)
LCF (Low-Cost Flat)
F (Flats)
CA (Condominiums / Apartments)
Figure 2.11: Pricing of Residential Units by Type in Malaysia (Quarter 2, 2009).
Adapted from “Quarterly Residential Property Stock Report,” by Valuation and Property
Services Department, Ministry of Finance Malaysia (2005 - 2009), pp. 3-5.
After discarding the outliers of 2-3 storey semi-detached, detached houses and
condominiums/apartment, the distribution of price amongst the house types can be
distinguished more clearly. Figure 2.12 shows that the median price of a detached house in
Malaysia is the second highest after 2-3 storey semi-detached houses at RM250,000
(AU$78,600) each. As a matter of fact the price of detached houses at Q1, median and Q3 are
actually lower compared to the 2-3 storey semi-detached houses. This shows that some of the
detached houses are actually cheaper than the 2-3 storey semi-detached houses in the
Malaysian market.
Refer Details in
Figure 2.12
Outliers
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
31
Figure 2.12: Pricing of Residential Units by Type in Malaysia (Quarter 2, 2009)
(Outliers in Figure 2.12 limited to RM1,000,000 (AU$314,400). Adapted from “Quarterly
Residential Property Stock Report,” by Valuation and Property Services Department,
Ministry of Finance Malaysia (2005 - 2009), pp. 3-5.
Figure 2.13 shows that the 2-3 storey terraced houses has the larger Estimated Gross
Sales Volume (number of properties multiplied by median house price) compared to other
types of housing scheme in Malaysia. This is due to the fact that 2-3 storey terraced houses
has a relatively high median price per unit and more importantly it has the biggest supply
volume of all. Compared to the 2-3 storey semi-detached houses, the units are being supplied
in relatively small numbers. However, it has the highest median price compared to other types
of housing scheme in Malaysia thus producing a relatively high figure of gross sales
development volume. Interestingly, the two highest gross sales volume housing scheme in
Malaysia between 2005 and 2009 are 2 to 3 storey high residential buildings.
Outliers: Refer Figure 2.11
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
32
Figure 2.13: Gross Sales Volume of Residential Units Supply in Malaysia (2005 -
2009). Adapted from “Quarterly Residential Property Stock Report,” by Valuation and
Property Services Department, Ministry of Finance Malaysia (2005 - 2009), pp. 3-5.
Referring to Figure 2.13, detached houses (bright red line) can be considered second
highest in terms of gross sales volume together with single storey terrace (dark blue line) and
condominium / apartment (black line). The 2-3 storey terrace houses was first in terms of
gross sales volume due to the fact that each unit has a relatively high price (just like detached
houses) but it was also produced in large volume (unlike the detached houses).
The supply of detached housing all over Malaysia in Quarter 2 2009 was at just under
400,000 units. Figure 2.14 illustrates its distribution all over the states of Malaysia and its
0
50
100
150
200
250
Q1
20
05
Q2
20
05
Q3
20
05
Q4
20
05
Q1
20
06
Q2
20
06
Q3
20
06
Q4
20
06
Q1
20
07
Q2
20
07
Q3
20
07
Q4
20
07
Q1
20
08
Q2
20
08
Q3
20
08
Q4
20
08
Q1
20
09
Q2
20
09
Q3
20
09
Q4
20
09
Est.
Gro
ss S
ale
s V
ol.
(R
M)
Bill
ion
s
Estimated Gross Sales Volume of Residential Units by Type in Malaysia 2005
- 2009 (Existing Stock)
Single Storey Terraced 2-3 Storey Terraced
Single Storey Semi-Detached 2-3 Storey Semi Detached
Detached Town House
Cluster Low Cost House
Low Cost Flat Flat
Service Apartment Condominium / Apartment
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
33
relation with the size of those states. The states that have significant numbers of over 40,000
units of detached houses are the large states of Peninsular Malaysia namely Johor, Pahang,
Perak and Selangor. The combined supply of detached houses in these states totals up to 56%
of the detached housing supply on the second quarter of 2009 in Peninsular Malaysia.
Interestingly, the Borneo states (Sabah and Sarawak), being the largest states in
Malaysia have the lowest concentration of detached housing (detached house numbers/km2)
in Malaysia. Due to the reality that it is uneconomical to include Sabah and Sarawak into the
scope of this research, the fact that detached housing scheme does not play a significant part
in their property market justifies their exclusion.
Figure 2.14: Supply of Detached Houses vs. Size of States in Malaysia (Q2, 2009).
Adapted from “Jumlah Penduduk dan Keluasan Setiap Negeri di Malaysia,” by Indayati, S.
(2000) and “Quarterly Residential Property Stock Report,” by Valuation and Property
Services Department, Ministry of Finance Malaysia (2005 - 2009) , pp. 3-5.
For the future, detached housing scheme in Malaysia in terms of supply is increasing
steadily (Figure 2.15). The overall trend shows that mass housing continues on a rapid
increase in terms of supply. Fuelled by the increasing demand of a growing nation, the fact
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
WP
Ku
ala
Lum
pu
r
WP
Pu
traj
aya
WP
Lab
uan
Sela
ngo
r
Joh
or
Pu
lau
Pin
ang
Pe
rak
Neg
eri
Se
mb
ilan
Me
laka
Ke
dah
Pah
ang
Tere
ngg
anu
Ke
lan
tan
Pe
rlis
Sab
ah
Sara
wak
Stat
e S
ize
(km
2)
De
tach
ed
Ho
use
(N
um
be
rs)
Relationship between the numbers of detached houses and state size in Malaysia
(Q2 2009)
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
34
that mass housing can be developed relatively fast due to its design standardisation makes it
popular amongst developer. On the other hand, with its customised design the detached
housing scheme would normally take longer to be built. It shows when there is just a marginal
increase in terms of supply of detached houses from 369,000 units in 2005 to 397,000 units
by the end of 2009.
Figure 2.15: Summary of Supply of Residential Units by Type in Malaysia (numbers).
Adapted from “Quarterly Residential Property Stock Report,” by Valuation and Property
Services Department, Ministry of Finance Malaysia (2005 - 2009), pp. 3-5
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
Q1
20
05
Q2
20
05
Q3
20
05
Q4
20
05
Q1
20
06
Q2
20
06
Q3
20
06
Q4
20
06
Q1
20
07
Q2
20
07
Q3
20
07
Q4
20
07
Q1
20
08
Q2
20
08
Q3
20
08
Q4
20
08
Q1
20
09
Q2
20
09
Q3
20
09
(un
its)
Tho
usa
nd
s
Summary of Supply of Residential Units By Type in Malaysia
Single Storey Terraced 2 - 3 Storey Terraced
Single Storey Semi-Detached 2 - 3 Storey Semi-Detached
Detached Town House
Cluster Low Cost House
Low Cost Flat Flat
Service Apartment Condominium / Apartment
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
35
In terms of price the detached housing scheme will continue to be higher than other
types of housing scheme. Figure 2.16 indicated that most of the time the index price of
detached houses had always been higher than other housing scheme due to its nature of being
the most exclusive housing types of all. This trend is only going to pick up faster and by the
year 2008 the price index of detached housing scheme had reached its 145 mark.
Figure 2.16: The Malaysian House Price Index (2000 – 2008). Adapted from “NAPIC
Overall Statistics,” by NAPIC, Valuation and Property Services Department, Ministry of
Finance Malaysia, (2009), p. 1.
As a conclusion, the detached housing scheme remains one of the more ‘exclusive’
housing markets in Malaysia. This is since the supply of detached houses is regularly less
than what are being offered as other ‘mass housing’ schemes such as the terraced houses,
high rise residential units and low cost housing. It is more popular in the bigger states of
Peninsular Malaysia due to the nature of detached houses that needs a bigger land plot than
other housing schemes. In fact, the top three states that provide more than 56% of the nation’s
detached housing supply are the bigger states of Peninsular Malaysia (Indayati, 2000, p. 1).
In terms of the price, the median price of detached houses is relatively high and its
maximum price is normally the highest in the Malaysian residential property market. Even
though in terms of market share the detached housing scheme continues to experience a slight
decrease, this is due to the fact that other housing schemes are being developed at a frantic
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Ind
ex
(2
00
0=1
00
)
Year
Malaysian House Price Index by House Type
Terrace High-Rise Detach Semi-Detach
Chapter 2: The Global and Malaysian Detached Housing Sector
36
rate to cope with its ever-increasing demand. In fact, in terms of numbers the development of
detached houses continues to grow at a more steadily pace between 0.1 – 2.7 % every quarter
(VPSD, 2005 - 2009, pp. 3-5).
2.4 SUMMARY
This chapter reviewed the literature related to detached housing scheme, development
success factors and development barriers as well as the application of owner satisfaction as a
key indicator of development success. The first section of the review identifies the
characteristics of detached housing scheme which makes it a unique segment of the housing
market. It also discusses the issues of determining development success and the typical
barriers that must be faced in any development scheme. Ultimately, this section highlighted
the importance of owner satisfaction as a decisive measure in determining project success.
Another focus of this chapter is on the current practice of detached housing
development in Malaysia. Grounded on genuine primary data provided by relevant Malaysian
authorities, this section peeks into the development trend of the Malaysian property sectors
especially in topic of detached housing scheme. Through an extensive array of charts and
graphs, this section is able to pinpoint the supply, price, gross sales volume and even the price
index of detached houses compared to other housing schemes in Malaysia. This enables this
research to establish the significance of the detached housing scheme in the Malaysian
property market.
Chapter 3: Owner Participation and Success In Development Projects
37
CHAPTER 3: OWNER PARTICIPATION
AND SUCCESS IN DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The previous chapter had introduced the detached housing scheme and its development trend
particularly in Malaysia. This chapter describes on the role of project owners in general which
than focuses on housing projects. In essence, this section highlights the role of project owners
in many types of projects which will then focus on owner participation in housing project
especially detached housing projects. The argument in this section would suggest that due to
the unique development nature of detached housing schemes, there are distinctive challenges
that need to be addressed through the owner as its development phase progresses.
3.2 THE CONCEPT OF OWNER PARTICIPATION
This section elaborates on the importance of owner participation in development
projects. By having the ‘participation’ that reflects the needs and aspirations of the residents,
a better end product could be produced that is better than could the designer working on his
own (Johnson, 1979, p. 30). This requirement is much more needed in the detached housing
scheme which every product may be tailored to the exact requirements of the owner.
However there are challenges in the successful application of having more owner
participation during the development as it also may hinder the progress of the project.
3.2.1 Role of Project Owners in Construction Projects
Traditionally, the role of owners is to assist the architect during the design process of a
project. According to Redström (2006, p. 127), the knowledge about use and users (namely
customers, client and owners) can play such a role in design is no longer a controversial idea
but something being taken into consideration in many areas of design. It is usually applied by
expert decision makers (such as the architect) as a method by which the user's knowledge is
collected and added to the design process, to the extent that it is considered to be relevant and
of interest. Most often this decision is made by the architect (Wulz, 1986, p. 162).
Nowadays, the owners play a more crucial role for a successful implementation of a
project. Even in the most complicated construction projects (where most of the technical
Chapter 3: Owner Participation and Success In Development Projects
38
knowledge comes from the contractors or even suppliers), the owner still plays a critical role
in the success of the project. Stauffer, Grimm & White (1977, p. 284) highlights that while
the contractors and manufacturers play an important role in Quality Assurance (QA),
experience has shown that it is to the owner's advantage to participate (if necessary with the
cooperation of a consultant) actively in the QA process. According to Trigunarsyah (2004a, p.
861), in any type of construction projects, the owners always lie on top of the project
organisation hierarchy. This provides the owners with the most authority in enforcing the
implementation of constructability and the owners' awareness of the benefit of improved
constructability.
One of the most important decisions that owner’s would have to make is the selection
of suitable procurement system for their project. As the current construction industry model
evolves from a ‘low-bid’ to the ‘all the same’ industry into a ‘value added’ performance
based industry (Kashiwagi, 1999, p. 417), the owners’ are realising that a price-only-based
selection strategy is not conducive to project delivery (Rahman & Kumaraswamy, 2004, p.
188). It is expected that owners will increasingly select other team members by using more
relational factors and bringing them into earlier stages of projects. For example, for the
development of multi-billion school facilities in Washington State, many contractors, school
districts, and designers have advocated the use of alternate delivery methods to improve the
process of project delivery. The traditional ways of awarding construction contracts for
school projects to the lowest responsible bidder through an open public bidding process may
not result in successful projects. Contractor expertise may be a better predictor of success
than the lowest bid (Schaufelberger, 2000a, p. 609). Owners are looking for contractors,
engineers, and suppliers to play a bigger role in implementation of the project and being more
accountable for overall results. This has resulted in non-traditional roles for all parties. One
extreme example is supplier led Engineer, Procure, Construct (EPC) contractors where
contractors and engineers are subcontracting to suppliers (Soper, Davis, Jackson, Vraspir &
Goan, 1992, p. 220).
The type of procurement method chosen by the owner would also affect the success of
the project in terms of investment cost, time of execution, and technical performance. It will
also determine the interrelationships, responsibilities, and risks of the parties involved in the
project, namely the owner, the engineer, the suppliers, and the contractors (Ireland, 2001, p.
33). However, the type of procurement approach does not dictate the level of participation of
owners in the project. Although the design-build approach may place much of the
Chapter 3: Owner Participation and Success In Development Projects
39
responsibility in the design-builder's hands, owners still have an important role to play for
construction projects to succeed (Sweeney, 2000, p. 67). For example, in Singapore when the
decision is made to procure a project using the Design and Build route, owners and their
project managers need to prepare the Request for Proposal (RFP) document that describes
owners’ needs. The RFP should contain a well-defined and comprehensive scope of work as
well a detailed aesthetic and performance criteria such as technical, functional and
workmanship quality (Ling & Poh, 2008, p. 165).
Generally, design-build process saves time as well as reduces the need for coordination
and management by the owner (Ribeiro Ferreira & Rogerson, 1999). Also, as buildings
become more technically complex, the technology rests more and more with the suppliers and
specialty contractors. Design-build also offers less owner involvement and requires less
management. Some owners agree with this theory, while others state that design-build
requires vigorous management by the owner or its construction manager. What is certain is
the extra effort is required in the early phases of the project during project definition and
design-build contract procurement (Kluenker, 1996, p. 19). In UAE, preparation and approval
of drawings, slowness of the owner’s decision-making process and inadequate early planning
of the project (by the owner and their consultants) are the major causes of delay of
construction projects (Faridi & El-Sayegh, 2006, p. 1175). Sweeney (2000, p. 68) emphasises
that although design-builders (in design and build contracts) take on much of the design
responsibility, they cannot design or construct a project without some critical owner
participation. Iyer and Jha (2005, p. 291) quoted Chan, Ho and Tam (2001) who stressed that
the owner’s competence has been recognised as the most important factor for design and
build projects.
Whatever the procurement type is used, what is expected from contractors is seen to be
higher than from other project partners. However, such increased responsibilities have to be
entrusted to the contractors by the owners and any such initiative must come from the owners
as they effectively control the project organization, team selection, and contract conditions
(Rahman & Kumaraswamy, 2004, p. 188). A competent owner would have his scope of work
well outlined and presented to the contractor and he would closely monitor his project
regarding its progress, budget, quality, and other aspects (Iyer & Jha, 2005, p. 291).
Owner participation is also vital in preventing delays of the contractor. One critical role
of the project owners have over the contractors is ensuring that all payments that need to be
made to the contractors are paid in time. Project owners must work collaboratively with
Chapter 3: Owner Participation and Success In Development Projects
40
contractors and facilitate regular payments in order to overcome delays, disputes and claims
(Enshassi, Mohamed & Abushaban, 2009, p. 269). A number of literatures has also identified
that delays in contractor’s payment by owner and partial payments during construction as
some of the contributing factors in delays of building construction projects (Abd El-Razek,
Bassioni & Mobarak, 2008, p. 838; Assaf & Al-Hejji, 2006, p. 356). The owners also need to
improve their integrity and develop trust with the contractors, as trust between owners and
contractors has a positive affect project performance (Pinto, Slevin & English, 2009, p. 645;
Schaufelberger, 2000b, p. 470).
Project owners must be aware that the decisions that are made in the initial stages of
planning and design are difficult and costly to change once construction begins
(Trigunarsyah, 2004a, p. 861). Any late design changes by owner or his agent during
construction worsens the delay problem (Abd El-Razek et al., 2008, p. 838). This is in
accordance to the findings of Assaf and Al-Hejji (2006, p. 356) which recommend that the
owners should give special attention to minimize change orders during construction to avoid
delays. However, Ibbs, Nguyen and Lee (2007, p. 51) argued that even when disruptions are
initially caused by owner-directed changes, the contractor can potentially reduce or escalate
the disruptions and inefficiency during the course of work. Rarely the loss of productivity is a
result from a single causing factor but multiple and concurrent ones for which both parties
can be responsible. To overcome this issue, Serpell (1999, p. 321) recommends that the
contractors to be introduced at early stages of the project in order that they can better
understand owner's requirements consequently minimising design changes during the
implementation of the project.
The success of a project does not only have to be limited in terms of time, cost and
quality but also in terms of safety. The owner has the responsibility to provide adequate
attention into safety issues to ensure the real success of the project. Many researchers agree
that owners have a positive and significant impact on project construction safety (Gambatese,
2000, p. 668; Huang & Hinze, 2006a, p. 172). Typically, owners and organisations of larger
projects and petrochemical projects are more actively promoting safety culture in their
operation (Filho, Andrade & Marinho, 2010, p. 619). However, this does not mean that
owners of small-scaled projects can be exempted from carrying out construction safety
measures in their project. As a matter of fact, Huang and Hinze (2006b, p. 181) recommends
that all owners, regardless of the type and size of their projects, should recognize that they
have a responsibility for construction safety.
Chapter 3: Owner Participation and Success In Development Projects
41
3.2.2 Owner Participation in Housing Development Projects
Due to its nature of being more customisable than other types of housing, the
development of detached houses demand more inputs from its stakeholder. Even though some
of the schemes have a predetermined design, the owner has a choice to modify its layout for
example to suit their lifestyle. Jergeas, Williamson, Skulmoski & Thomas (2000, p. 12.1)
quoted a number of sources on the definition of project stakeholders. They include:
“people or groups that have, or believe they have, legitimate claims against the
substantive aspects of a project” (Cleland, 1998);
individuals and organizations who are actively involved in the project, or whose
interests may be positively or negatively affected as a result of project execution or
successful project completion (PMI, 1996);
an individual, individuals, team or teams affected by a project (Juliano, 1995);
someone who is “positively or negatively affected by the activities or final results of
the project” (Dinsmore, 1995).
In terms of detached housing development, stakeholders are usually consists of owners /
developers, consultants, contractors, sub-contractors, suppliers, financiers and local
authorities. However, this research only focuses on the owners as the prime stakeholder in
this type of projects because what is truly relevant is not that the project eventually is
finalized in time and according to the budget, but that the customer is satisfied with the
overall experience (Carù et al., 2004, p. 532).
The concept of having the owner participate in the development of its own housing
project is not new. In the 1960s, the SAR (Foundation for Architects' Research) Netherlands
had introduced the ‘support-infill’ concept of housing design as a means of improving
building performance and enabling user participation. The idea was that in housing, as well as
in other areas of building, it would be meaningful to distinguish between the decisions that
could be made by the larger community of users and those that could be made by the
individual user (Carp, 1986, p. 125).
In the 1970s, the concern with user (namely customer / client / owner) participation and
housing customization found favourable ground in Portugal. To cope with an increasing
housing shortage the government launched a program named SAAL which foresaw that
teams of architects and engineers would work with households (namely customer / client /
owner) in the design and construction of their houses (Benros & Duarte, 2009, p. 311).
Chapter 3: Owner Participation and Success In Development Projects
42
The most passive form of participation is achieved by the architect's consideration for
the wishes and personal needs of the client / user. This is the positive side of the architect's
role as the interpreter of the explicit and implicit expressed desires, ambitions, dreams and
self-esteem of the personally known client. The client's influence on the architectural process
and its result takes place because of the architect's capability of putting himself in his client's
place (Wulz, 1986, p. 155).
The level of owner participation varies from one development stage to another. Even in
the planning stage, the participation of owner differs from one phase to another. A portion of
a research by Shapira, Laufer & J Shenhar (1994, p. 177) is represented in Figure 3.1. It
shows the mean degree of involvement of client observed in project definition and
engineering. The decision-making phases were grouped into two parts:
The earlier part of the decision-making process, which comprises information
gathering and the development of alternatives (Part I);
The later part, which includes the evaluation of alternatives and choice making (Part
II).
The short line segments that run between adjacent bars show the trend of involvement
within each planning stage, while the long segments connecting all the pairs of bars show the
overall evolution of involvement.
Therefore based on Figure 3.1, Shapira et al (1994, p. 177) identified that the client is
the party that is most involved at the programme stage and his/her involvement then linearly
decreases as planning become more and more focused and detailed. Within each planning
stage, the client shows a behaviour that is very similar to the project managers.
Chapter 3: Owner Participation and Success In Development Projects
43
Figure 3.1: Involvement of client (or customers / owners) in project definition and
engineering. Adapted from “Anatomy of decision making in project planning teams” by
Shapira, A., Laufer, A., & J Shenhar, A., (1994),. International Journal of Project
Management, 12(3), p. 177.
The level of participation of house owners in developing their house would also depend
to the type of house they are building. Referring to Table 3.1 by Noguchi and Hernàndez-
Velasco (2005, p. 330), an owner of a readily-built home would have far less chance of
customising their home in the design phase than an owner of a fully custom home. This is
done to keep the standardisation level high because the benefit of an identical designed
housing scheme will keep its selling price low and its production level high. In simple terms,
customisation of houses tends to make its development cost higher and takes longer time to
be completed.
Chapter 3: Owner Participation and Success In Development Projects
44
Table 3.1: The levels of standardisation and customisation compared by housing type.
Source: Adapted from “A `mass custom design' approach to upgrading conventional
housing development in Mexico,” by Noguchi, M., & Hernàndez-Velasco, C. R., (2005),
Habitat International, 29(2), p. 330.
The drive of house owner is even more critical especially for redevelopment projects of
displaced societies due to natural disaster. According to Lyons (2009, p. 391), in a post
December 2004 tsunami the Sri Lankan Government had launched TAFREN (Task Force for
Rebuilding the Nation) with its aim to redevelop the affected areas. Agreed by the World
Bank and major supporting donors in March 2005, there were two major programs executed
for this redevelopment scheme. Figure 3.2 represents the work flow of the proposed Owner
Driven Program (ODP) and Donor Assisted Program (DAP). The differences in organisation
and constraints had significant impact on the productivity of the two programs:
In quantitative terms, the Owner Driven Program (ODP) has been more productive
than the Donor Assisted Program (DAP);
The ODP had started much earlier than its counterpart;
The ODP had better completion rating than the DAP (at the time of the survey);
The ODP-built houses can be occupied earlier than the DAP-built houses;
The DAP is less effective tool for redevelopment in sensitive conflict areas of
Eastern Sri Lanka;
The smaller-scaled ODP development programs are able to achieve more than the
larger-scale DAP development programs.
Chapter 3: Owner Participation and Success In Development Projects
45
Figure 3.2: Housing Program Entitlements. Adapted from “Building Back Better: The
Large-Scale Impact of Small-Scale Approaches to Reconstruction,” by Lyons, M. , (2009),
World Development, 37(2), p. 388.
The findings clearly demonstrate that with the owner playing a key role in a project, the
Owner Driven Program in Sri Lanka (ODP) performed better than the Donor Assisted
Program (DAP) on both quantitative and qualitative criteria (Karunasena & Raufdeen, 2010,
p. 184; Lyons, 2009, p. 395). This findings is in line with a study by Ogu and Ogbuozobe
(2001, p. 474) which highlights that provider-oriented approaches (especially in developing
countries) have failed to meet the housing need of the vulnerable low-income households who
require accommodation the most.
Thabrew, Wiek and Ries (2009, p. 75) had proposed an entire life cycle assessment
system based on the stakeholders’ input. The Stakeholder-Based Life Cycle Assessment
(SBLCA) provides decision support and can be used to structure and analyse stakeholder
associations and map those potentially affected by the various economic, social, and
environmental aspects of the proposed development. This proves the importance of owner
participation as one of the key stakeholder is not only required during the construction stage
but during the entire life-cycle of the development.
Chapter 3: Owner Participation and Success In Development Projects
46
3.2.3 Challenges of the Concept of ‘Owner Participation’
The understanding of the owner’s/user’s needs in any housing development project is
important for its overall success. A major problem in terms to designs is failing to gain
approval and acceptance has been to consider it to be a matter of insufficient knowledge
about people, their capacities, needs and desires and that design therefore needs to be based
on the improvement of such knowledge (Redström, 2006, p. 123). Systems without a
participatory component run the risk of becoming out of date and irrelevant to the ultimate
stakeholders, plus the end result is simply inadequately informed (Barton, Plume & Parolin,
2005, p. 649). As a matter of fact, there is no evidence that architectural design is reduced to
the lowest common denominator just because the residents have been involved in the design
process (Lawrence, 1982, p. 99).
Lampel, Miller and Floricel (1996, p. 563) highlights that for a complex engineering
projects, the owners occupy a central position at the hub of the information system which
links members of the project. From this position they exert influence on the analysis of
problems and the type of solutions that are proposed as remedies. However, their role in
providing remedies is constrained by two factors, their ability and at times their willingness to
exert such influence. In the absence of internal expertise, owners are forced to rely on other
organisations to develop solutions, and they must also rely on other organizations to evaluate
the merit of such solutions. Furthermore, this reliance does not end with development and
evaluation of solutions, but extends to implementation as well. This was also highlighted by
Halil Shevket & Aysal (2004, p. 103) who recommends that owner has to perform important
duties and responsibilities at the right times in correct ways during the implementation of a
construction project.
Wulz (1986, p. 162) stressed that even having the participation of owners seems to be
the best approach at times, it is not being free from conflicts. This is not the case in reality
because even users can have different opinions when they have to come to a common
decision. The best way is for the project owner to understand the contexts and practices of
other parties involved in the project, such as the construction and design contractors, so as to
achieve effective communication and cooperation with each other (Chen, Qiang & Wang,
2009, p. 1025).
Gamper and Turcanu (2009, p. 527) underlined that what remains to be done in future
research is to provide detailed analysis of the quality of participation. Specifically, there is a
need for in depth analyses of the effect of participation on the actual decision making. Unless
Chapter 3: Owner Participation and Success In Development Projects
47
these analyses are carried out there is the risk of making public participation yet another
decorative planning element to justify final decision makers’ decisions.
Bubshait (1994, p. 117) had clearly concluded the importance of owner involvement.
“Owner involvement is essential to project quality. Success or failure is, in many cases,
related directly to the level of owner involvement. Owners who exercise close involvement
are usually satisfied with the final project quality.” Therefore, the owner cannot be seen as
just an investor but also a significant contributing party from the concept till completing stage
of a project (Halil Shevket & Aysal, 2004, p. 97).
3.3 RESEARCH VARIABLES
There are numerous models put forward on ensuring successful developments or
construction projects. Numerous attempts had been made that would suit these projects, a
generalisation of project success according to some practical classification should be
identified (Lim & Mohamed, 1999, p. 243). However, the generalisation of the model will not
satisfy every branch of the construction industry due to the fact that each branch has different
requirements. This is due to the fact that every development and construction projects and
each have its own criteria in defining its project success.
Previously, the degree of participation was associated in accordance to the development
stages of a project (Wulz, 1986, p. 162). The interests of those involved in participation are
related to different time periods in the participation process. He had divided the participation
time factor into three periods: during the design phase; during the construction phase and
participation in administration and maintenance after the completion of the project.
One popular approach in identifying the success factors is by the Critical Success
Factors (CSF) Models. Fortune and White (2006, p. 54) highlights two main criticisms of
CSF approach:
The inter-relationships between factors are at least as important as the individual
factors but the CSF approach does not provide a mechanism for taking account of
these inter-relationships;
The factor approach tends to view implementation as a static process instead of a
dynamic phenomenon, and ignores the potential for a factor to have varying levels
of importance at different stages of the implementation process.
Chapter 3: Owner Participation and Success In Development Projects
48
This can simply be said that current CSF approach does not take into account the
relationship between the factors during different development stages of the project. To
overcome this problem, the proposed Detached Housing Development Guideline would have
to include the element of time to highlight the interaction between factors during different
developmental stages of a detached housing project.
To overcome this issue, this research had identified four main factors. These factors are
extracted from literatures as well as dialogues with industry players. This research analyses
the importance of these factors in its group during different development stages as well as the
interaction between these factors. The factors are development success factors, development
barriers, owner participation and owner satisfaction.
3.3.1 Development Success Factors
There are many literatures on the subject matter on success factors. Most of them are
referring from the medium to big to gigantic scale of construction products. This is because,
success criteria will differ from project to project depending on a number of issues, for
example, size, uniqueness and complexity (Wateridge, 1998, p. 59). Therefore, more effort
must be made to identify the success factors of the smaller scaled construction market such
the detached housing scheme.
There are 21 indicators that the researcher could extract that are viable for development
success factors. Table 3.2 lists these indicators and the literatures where they are extracted
from. The first indicator in the development success factors is “to complete the work within
the time period”. Literally it means that all related parties must do their best to ensure that the
development could be completed within the allocated period. From the researcher’s
observation, it is normal for detached houses in Malaysia to provide one to two years for the
contractor to complete their job.
Chapter 3: Owner Participation and Success In Development Projects
49
Table 3.2: The list of indicators for the development success factors and its sources.
Indicators Sources
1. To complete the work
within the time period
(Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 274), (Frödell, Josephson & Lindahl,
2008, p. 24), (Bryde & Robinson, 2005, p. 626), (Ling & Liu,
2004, p. 1271),(Westerveld, 2003, p. 412)
2. To complete the work
within the budget
(Cannalire, 2011, p. 47),(Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 274),
(Fortune & White, 2006, p. 56), (Iyer & Jha, 2005, p. 285),
(Bryde & Robinson, 2005, p. 626), (Ling & Liu, 2004, p.
1272), (Nguyen, Ogunlana & Do Thi Xuan, 2004, p. 406),
(Westerveld, 2003, p. 412)
3. To complete the work
with the pre-
determined quality
(Cannalire, 2011, p. 47), (Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 275),
(Frödell et al., 2008, p. 27), (Metri, 2005, p. 61), (Ling & Liu,
2004, p. 1264), (Westerveld, 2003, p. 412)
4. Solid measures to
control risks
(Jusoff, Adnan & Nazli, 2008, p. 95), (Zou, Zhang & Wang,
2007, p. 612), (Fortune & White, 2006, p. 56), (Westerveld,
2003, p. 415), (Akintoye & MacLeod, 1997, p. 36), (Cooper,
MacDonald & Chapman, 1985, p. 142),
5. Measures for health
and safety on site
(Cannalire, 2011, p. 47), (Kines et al., 2010, p. 399), (Enshassi
et al., 2009, p. 277), (Alkhathami, 2004, p. 124), (Mohamed,
2002, p. 381), (Gambatese, 2000, p. 662), (Kallman, 1998, p.
668),
6. To manage the
project’s impact
towards the
environment
(Tan, Shen & Yao, 2011, p. 225), (Enshassi et al., 2009, p.
277), (Mendonça & Bragança, 2007, p. 3442), (Fortune &
White, 2006, p. 56)
7. To focus on customer’s
/ client’s / owner’s
satisfaction
(Ubani, 2011, p. 182), (Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 276), (Pinto et
al., 2009, p. 644), (Ahmad, Aziz & Jaafar, 2009, p. 13),
(Frödell et al., 2008, p. 25), (Metri, 2005, p. 68), (Bryde &
Robinson, 2005, p. 626), (Ling & Liu, 2004, p. 1272), (Chan
& Chan, 2004, p. 214), (Westerveld, 2003, p. 412)
8. To achieve the scope or
project’s objectives
(Daniel, Albert, Patrick & James, 2010, p. 197), (Ahmad et
al., 2009, p. 12), (Fortune & White, 2006, p. 55),
(Trigunarsyah, 2004a, p. 867), (Alkhathami, 2004, p. 4),
(Nguyen et al., 2004, p. 408)
9. To fulfil the technical
specifications in the
contract
(Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 275), (Bryde & Robinson, 2005, p.
626), (Sweeney, 2000, p. 68), (Bubshait, 1994, p. 117)
10. To fulfil the real
functional requirement
of the project
(Ahmad et al., 2009, p. 13),(Frödell et al., 2008, p. 25),
(Shapira et al., 1994, p. 181)
11. To reflect the
reputation of parties
involved
(Abdul-Aziz & Jahn Kassim, 2011, p. 153), (Ahmad et al.,
2009, p. 13), (Permentier, Bolt & van Ham, 2011, p. 993)
12. To produce the revenue
and profit that was
planned
(Ahmad et al., 2009, p. 13), (Frödell et al., 2008, p. 29),
(Hanna, 2007, p. 99), (Akintoye & MacLeod, 1997, p. 33)
13. To provide reward for
all stakeholders
(Clark et al., 2010, p. 48), (Ahmad et al., 2009, p. 7), (Bryde
& Robinson, 2005, p. 627), (Westerveld, 2003, p. 414),
(Eduljee, 2000, p. 18), (de Wit, 1988, p. 167)
Chapter 3: Owner Participation and Success In Development Projects
50
Table 3.2: The list of indicators for the development success factors and its sources
(continued).
Indicators Sources
14. The stability of local
political climate
(Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 279), (Schattan P. Coelho &
Favareto, 2008, p. 2950), (Fortune & White, 2006, p. 56),
(Iyer & Jha, 2005, p. 289)
15. To have a solid,
detailed and latest
project plan
(Toor & Ogunlana, 2009, p. 161), (Fortune & White, 2006, p.
55), (Assaf & Al-Hejji, 2006, p. 356), (Alkhathami, 2004, p.
124)
16. To apply a good
communication and
response system
(Fan, Lin & Sheu, 2008, p. 710), (Fortune & White, 2006, p.
55), (Iyer & Jha, 2005, p. 288), (Nguyen et al., 2004, p. 410)
17. To value the
involvement of project
owner
(Andersen, 2012, p. 77), , (Toor & Ogunlana, 2009, p. 161),
(Frödell et al., 2008, p. 30), (Fortune & White, 2006, p. 55),
(Iyer & Jha, 2005, p. 293), (Nguyen et al., 2004, p. 409),
(Westerveld, 2003, p. 417), (Bubshait, 1994, p. 117)
18. To acquire a competent
project manager or
superintending officer
(Ahmad et al., 2009, p. 12), (Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 270),
(Toor & Ogunlana, 2009, p. 158), (Fortune & White, 2006, p.
55), (Derus & Aziz, 2006, p. 1), (Iyer & Jha, 2005, p. 288),
(Alkhathami, 2004, p. 32), (Nguyen et al., 2004, p. 408)
19. To have a realistic
project schedule (Cannalire, 2011, p. 47), (Al‐Kharashi & Skitmore, 2009, p.
21), (Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 275), (Fortune & White, 2006,
p. 55), (Faridi & El-Sayegh, 2006, p. 1175), (Assaf & Al-
Hejji, 2006, p. 349), (Isidore & Back, 2002, p. 218),
(Bubshait, 1994, p. 117)
20. To apply an effective
monitoring and control
system
(Fortune & White, 2006, p. 56), (Iyer & Jha, 2005, p. 290),
(Alkhathami, 2004, p. 32), (Nguyen et al., 2004, p. 411),
(Westerveld, 2003, p. 414), (Bubshait, 1994, p. 117)
21. To achieve high
performance from the
consultants and
contractors
(Cannalire, 2011, p. 47), (Fortune & White, 2006, p. 56), (Iyer
& Jha, 2005, p. 283), (Ling & Peh, 2005, p. 363), (Xiao &
Proverbs, 2003, p. 330), (Yasamis, Arditi & Mohammadi,
2002, p. 221), (Meng, 2002, p. 237)
Chapter 3: Owner Participation and Success In Development Projects
51
3.3.2 Development Barriers
There are 22 indicators that are extracted that are viable for development barriers. Table
3.3 lists these indicators and the literatures where they are extracted from.
Table 3.3: The list of indicators for the development barriers and its sources.
Indicators Sources
1. The prediction of the
property market
(Forrest, 2008, p. 12), (Zety Fazilah, 2000, para. 28), (Carter,
1990, p. 170)
2. The competition
amongst consultant or
contractor
(Tan et al., 2011, p. 229), (Kim & Reinschmidt, 2011, p. 282),
(Nissen, 2007, p. 36), (Iyer & Jha, 2005, p. 291)
3. The financial
projection of the
project
(Al‐Kharashi & Skitmore, 2009, p. 19), (Assaf & Al-Hejji,
2006, p. 356), (Alkhathami, 2004, p. 17), (Nguyen et al.,
2004, p. 405), (Carp, 1986, p. 131)
4. The condition of the
construction site
(Kines et al., 2010, p. 401), (Zou et al., 2007, p. 607),
(Acharya, Lee & Im, 2006, p. 564), (Iyer & Jha, 2005, p. 288),
(Anonymous, 2002, p. 53), (Toole, 2002, p. 210), (Mohamed,
2002, p. 381)
5. The revenue of
consultants and
contractors
(Natarelli & Mercado, 2007, p. 39), (Hanna, 2007, p. 99),
(Anonymous, 2007, p. 65), (Ling & Peh, 2005, p. 362),
(Lundy & Padgitt, 2003, p. 5)
6. The uncertainty of
payment (Al‐Kharashi & Skitmore, 2009, p. 19), (Abd El-Razek et al.,
2008, p. 838), (Munaaim, 2006, p. 71), (Acharya et al., 2006,
p. 564), (Alkhathami, 2004, p. 116)
7. The instability of the
interest rate
(GPG, 2010, para. 11), (Natividade-Jesus, Coutinho-
Rodrigues & Antunes, 2007, p. 779), , (Marohabutr, 2008, p.
16)
8. The verbal consent of
design
(Emmitt & Gorse, 2009, p. 22), (Emmitt & Gorse, 2006),
(Carmona, 2003, p. 72)
9. The compliance
towards construction
rules and regulations
(NRE, 2010b, p. 21), (Sufian & Rahman, 2008, p. 154),
(Wong, 2008, p. 4), (Forrest, 2008, p. 9), (Mahmood &
Hussin, 2004, p. 2), (Sweeney, 2000, p. 68), (Carp, 1986, p.
127)
10. The application of
planning approval
(Abdul-Aziz & Jahn Kassim, 2011, p. 156), (NRE, 2010b, p.
19),(Sufian & Rahman, 2008, p. 154), (Wong, 2008, p. 8),
(Forrest, 2008, p. 9), (Zou et al., 2007, p. 607), (Faridi & El-
Sayegh, 2006, p. 1175), (Sweeney, 2000, p. 68)
11. The delay of project
design (Al‐Kharashi & Skitmore, 2009, p. 21), (Faridi & El-Sayegh,
2006, p. 1175), (Assaf & Al-Hejji, 2006, p. 355), (Sweeney,
2000, p. 68)
12. The validation of
quantity and
specification
(Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 279), (Bryde & Robinson, 2005, p.
626), (Bubshait, 1994, p. 117)
13. The process of
contractor selection
(Walraven & de Vries, 2009, p. 603), (Padhi & Mohapatra,
2009, p. 222), (Zavadskas, Turskis & Tamošaitiene, 2008, p.
185), (Singh & Tiong, 2006, p. 1007), (Holt, 1998, p. 161),
(Hatush & Skitmore, 1997, p. 35), (Holt, Olomolaiye &
Harris, 1994, p. 442)
Chapter 3: Owner Participation and Success In Development Projects
52
Table 3.3: The list of indicators for the development barriers and its sources
(continued).
Indicators Sources
14. The delays on-site (Mohammed & Isah, 2012, p. 792), (Doloi, Sawhney, Iyer &
Rentala, 2012, p. 488), (Abd El-Razek et al., 2008, p. 838),
(Alaghbari, Mohd. Razali, Salim & Ernawati, 2007, p. 204),
(Othman, Torrance & Hamid, 2006, p. 498)
15. The delays of the
contractor (Al‐Kharashi & Skitmore, 2009, p. 20), (Stiegler, 2000, p. 74),
(Faridi & El-Sayegh, 2006, p. 1175)
16. The health and safety
obligations
(Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 277), (Zou et al., 2007, p. 612),
(Mohamed, 2002, p. 381), (Gambatese, 2000, p. 668),
(Kallman, 1998, p. 441), (Ringen, Seegal & England, 1995, p.
179)
17. The failure of design or
design changes
(Chohan, Memon, Agro, Che-Ani & Ishak, 2011, p. 478),
(Abd El-Razek et al., 2008, p. 838), (Assaf & Al-Hejji, 2006,
p. 350), (Alkhathami, 2004, p. 19), (Ulichkin, 1981, p. 95)
18. The impact towards the
environment
(Tan et al., 2011, p. 229), (Ahmad et al., 2009, p. 12),
(Mendonça & Bragança, 2007, p. 3442), (Fortune & White,
2006, p. 56)
19. The shortage of
manpower and
construction material
(Al‐Kharashi & Skitmore, 2009, p. 20), (Abd El-Razek et al.,
2008, p. 833), (Faridi & El-Sayegh, 2006, p. 1175), (Assaf &
Al-Hejji, 2006, p. 356), , (Gorke, 1999, p. 11)
20. The overall failure of
the construction
(Chohan et al., 2011, p. 478), (Abdul-Aziz & Jahn Kassim,
2011, p. 155), (Natarelli & Mercado, 2007, p. 37), (Carmona,
2003, p. 72)
21. The absence of
assurance or warranty
(Ahmad et al., 2009, p. 12), (Coln, 2009, p. 18), (McGreevey,
2005, p. 42), (Abdulaziz, 2000, p. 1), (MacKie III, 1985, p.
152), (Gloskowski, 1975, p. 1)
22. The liability under the
provision of law
(IKPO, 2005, p. 20), (Mahmood & Hussin, 2004, p. 2),
(Carmona, 2003, p. 72), (MacKie III, 1985, p. 153)
Chapter 3: Owner Participation and Success In Development Projects
53
3.3.3 Owner Participation
There are 29 indicators that are extracted that are viable for owner participation. Table
3.4 lists these indicators and the literatures where they are extracted from.
Table 3.4: The list of indicators for the owner participation and its sources.
Indicators Sources
1. To appoint the
consultants
(Wroblaski, 2011, p. 24), (Karlsen, 2010, p. 656), (Kalina,
2006, p. 44), (Halil Shevket & Aysal, 2004, p. 98), (Frable,
1997, p. 42)
2. To plan the project
objective
(Andersen, 2012, p. 75), (Karlsen, 2010, p. 644), (Moore,
2008, p. 8), (Halil Shevket & Aysal, 2004, p. 99),
(Trigunarsyah, 2004a, p. 862), (Sweeney, 2000, p. 68)
3. To prepare the
organisational structure
(Al-Dosary, Assaf & Aldakhil, 2009, p. 398), (Moore, 2008,
p. 107), (Salgado, 2005, p. 100), (Cheng, Su & You, 2003, p.
79), (Shirazi, Langford & Rowlinson, 1996, p. 210),
4. To plan the project
schedule
(Abdul-Rahman, Wang, Takim & Wong, 2011, p. 206),
(Emond & Steins, 2011, p. 63), (Jaśkowski & Biruk, 2011, p.
440), (Twomey, 2006, p. 103), (Halil Shevket & Aysal, 2004,
p. 99), (Francis, 2003, p. 6)
5. To estimate the cost of
the project
(Karlsen, 2010, p. 653), (Halil Shevket & Aysal, 2004, p. 97),
(Sweeney, 2000, p. 68),
6. To acquire the source
of funding
(Anonymous, 2011, para. 13), (Forrest, 2008, p. 12), (Turpin,
2008, p. 1), (Abd El-Razek et al., 2008, p. 838), (Nielsen,
2006, p. 64)
7. To acquire the project
site
(Tarakson, 2005, p. 90), (Keivani & Werna, 2001, p. 70),
(Sweeney, 2000, p. 68), (Harris, 1998, p. 184)
8. To plan the design of
the structure
(Sweeney, 2000, p. 68), (Trigunarsyah, 2004a, p. 867), (Wulz,
1986, p. 162), (Lawrence, 1982, p. 102)
9. To plan the internal and
external design
(Folaranmi, 2012, p. 730), (Chohan et al., 2011, p. 481),
(Black, 1997),(Frable, 1997, p. 43), (Carp, 1986, p. 132)
10. To ensure the
compliance towards the
rules and regulations of
the local authority
(NRE, 2010b, p. 8), (Sufian & Rahman, 2008, p. 141), (Wong,
2008, p. 4), (Forrest, 2008, p. 9), (Mahmood & Hussin, 2004,
p. 2), (Sweeney, 2000, p. 69)
11. To determine the
project specifications
(Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 275), (Acharya et al., 2006, p. 562),
(Bryde & Robinson, 2005, p. 626), (Sweeney, 2000, p. 68),
(Bubshait, 1994, p. 117)
12. To acquire the approval
of the local authority to
carry out the project
(NRE, 2010b, p. 19), (Sufian & Rahman, 2008, p. 146),
(Wong, 2008, p. 2), (Forrest, 2008, p. 9), (Mahmood &
Hussin, 2004, p. 2), (Sweeney, 2000, p. 68)
13. To prepare the quantity
and specifications
(Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 275), (Acharya et al., 2006, p. 562),
(Bryde & Robinson, 2005, p. 626), (Nguyen et al., 2004, p.
404), (Sweeney, 2000, p. 68), (Bubshait, 1994, p. 117)
14. To prepare tender
documents or contract
(Nguyen et al., 2004, p. 409), (Eyster, 1988, p. 50), (PWD,
1983a, p. 6), (PWD, 1983b, p. 1)
15. To manage the process
of tender bid
(Kim & Reinschmidt, 2011, p. 275), (Aibinu & Al-Lawati,
2010, p. 723), (Toor & Ogunlana, 2009, p. 149), (Nissen,
2007, p. 32)
Chapter 3: Owner Participation and Success In Development Projects
54
Table 3.4: The list of indicators for the owner participation and its sources (continued).
Indicators Sources
16. To appoint the
contractor
(Assaf & Al-Hejji, 2006, p. 351), (Nguyen et al., 2004, p.
408), (Yasamis et al., 2002),(Holt, 1998, p. 221), (Hatush &
Skitmore, 1997, p. 35), (Holt et al., 1994, p. 442)
17. To negotiate with the
contractor
(Foster-Bobroff, 2011, para. 1), (Stephens, 2010, para. 1),
(Pinto et al., 2009, p. 638), (Bubshait, 1994, p. 116)
18. To hand over the site to
the contractor
(Anonymous, 2010a, p. 1), (Engineers, 1999, p. 1), (PWD,
1983a, p. 17)
19. To attend the site
meetings
(Emmitt & Gorse, 2009, p. 158), (Emmitt & Gorse, 2006),
(Nguyen et al., 2004, p. 408)
20. To monitor the
progress of work
(Rojanamon, Chaisomphob & Bureekul, 2012, p. 332), (Brun
& Jolley, 2011, p. 215), , (Palaneeswaran, Ng &
Kumaraswamy, 2006, p. 1559), (Simpson, Henke, Beamer &
Bennett, 2004, p. 7)
21. To monitor the health
and safety procedure on
site
(Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 277), (Huang & Hinze, 2006a, p.
172), (Alkhathami, 2004, p. 124), (Mohamed, 2002, p. 381),
(Gambatese, 2000, p. 662), (Kallman, 1998, p. 668), (Ringen
et al., 1995, p. 166)
22. To monitor the process
of progress payment
(Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 274), (Assaf & Al-Hejji, 2006, p.
356), (Munaaim, 2006, p. 71), (Meng, 2002, p. 237)
23. To monitor variation
orders
, (Ibbs et al., 2007, p. 46), (Assaf & Al-Hejji, 2006, p. 356),
(Acharya et al., 2006, p. 559), (Schaufelberger, 2000a, p. 610)
24. To provide the
certificate of practical
completion
(Chow & Chan, 2009, p. 109), (Mohd Nor, 2008, p. 129),
(Palaneeswaran et al., 2006, p. 1561), (Thompson, 2004, p.
11)
25. To monitor extension
of time claims
(Lester & Mackay, 2011, p. 99), (Boukendour, 2009, p. 1266),
(O'Leary, 1998, p. 44), (Bubshait, 1994, p. 177)
26. To monitor liquidated
and ascertain damages
claims
(Coldwell, Burchett-Williams & Celeste, 2010, para. 1),
(Danuri, Munaaim & Yen, 2009, p. 10), (Caplicki & Guidry,
2006, p. 22), (Bubshait, 1994, p. 177)
27. To monitor the repair
works during defects
liability period
(Ahmad et al., 2009, p. 14), (Frödell et al., 2008, p. 27),
(Palaneeswaran et al., 2006, p. 1566), (IKPO, 2005, p. 20),
(Carù et al., 2004, p. 539)
28. To monitor the
preparation of final
account and final
certificate
(Chow, 2008, p. 245), (LAM, 2008, p. 1), (Ismail, 2007, p. 9),
(Brewer, 2005, p. 38)
29. To hand over the site to
the owner
(Anonymous, 2010a, p. 1), (Engineers, 1999, p. 1), (PWD,
1983a, p. 17)
Chapter 3: Owner Participation and Success In Development Projects
55
3.3.4 Owner Satisfaction
There are 17 indicators that are extracted that are viable for owner satisfaction. Table
3.5 lists these indicators and the literatures where they are extracted from.
Table 3.5: The list of indicators for the owner satisfaction and its sources.
Indicators Sources
1. The overall design of
the house
(Rand, Hirano & Kelman, 2011, p. 200), (Chohan et al., 2011,
p. 481), (Redström, 2006, p. 124), (Kowaltowski et al., 2005,
p. 108), (Trigunarsyah, 2004a, p. 867), (Sweeney, 2000, p.
68), (MHLG, 1999a, para. 9), (Chakrabarty, 1987, p. 289),
2. The internal space of
the house
(Reuschke, 2012, p. 27), (Dekker, de Vos, Musterd & van
Kempen, 2011, p. 494), (Mohit & Nazyddah, 2011, p. 151)
3. The area of house’s
space
(Leguizamon & Ross, 2012, p. 56), (Chohan et al., 2011, p.
464), (NCLT, 2009, para. 6)
4. The numbers of
bedroom
(Reuschke, 2012, p. 24), (Mohit & Nazyddah, 2011, p. 162),
(Amole, 2009, p. 84), (Diaz-Serrano, 2009, p. 749), (OCASI,
2009, para. 6), (Mendonça & Bragança, 2007, p. 3437)
5. The size of the master
bedroom
(Mohit & Nazyddah, 2011, p. 162), (Amole, 2009, p. 84),
(OCASI, 2009, para.6), (Mendonça & Bragança, 2007, p.
3437)
6. The size of the master
bathroom
(Reuschke, 2012, p. 19), (Leguizamon & Ross, 2012, p. 57),
(Chohan et al., 2011, p. 474), (Amole, 2009, p. 82), (Diaz-
Serrano, 2009, p. 749), (OCASI, 2009, para. 6), (Mendonça &
Bragança, 2007, p. 3437)
7. The size of the living
room
(Mohit & Nazyddah, 2011, p. 151), (OCASI, 2009, para. 1),
(Mendonça & Bragança, 2007, p. 3437)
8. The size of the kitchen (Reuschke, 2012, p. 27), (Mohit & Nazyddah, 2011, p. 162),
(Amole, 2009, p. 82), (OCASI, 2009, para. 1), (NCLT, 2009,
para. 2), (Mendonça & Bragança, 2007, p. 3438)
9. The quality of
construction materials
that were used
(Chohan et al., 2011, p. 473), (Cannalire, 2011, p. 49), (Tam
et al., 2000, p. 444), (Enshassi et al., 2009, p. 279), (Bubshait,
1994, p. 117)
10. The aspect of water
supply
(Rand et al., 2011, p. 201), (Diaz-Serrano, 2009, p. 749),
(Berkoz, Turk & Kellekci, 2008, p. 168), (Schattan P. Coelho
& Favareto, 2008, p. 2945), (Simpson et al., 2004, p. 2)
11. The aspect of electrical
supply
(Mohit & Nazyddah, 2011, p. 160), (Berkoz et al., 2008, p.
168), (Ireland, 2001, p. 38), (Kashiwagi, 1999, p. 424)
12. The aspect of
ventilation in the house
(Etheridge, 2012, p. 7), (Mohit & Nazyddah, 2011, p. 158),
(Chohan et al., 2011, p. 474), (Melikov, 2004, p. 164)
13. The exterior compound
area outside the house
(Leguizamon & Ross, 2012, p. 64), (Venhaus, 2012, p. 32),
(Ile, 2011, p. 21), , (Smith, Dunnett & Clayden, 2008, p. 4)
14. The area of entrance
road and drainage
(Chohan et al., 2011, p. 473), (Yang & Li, 2010, p. 1649),
(Othman et al., 2006, p. 493)
15. The duration to
complete the house
(Dursun & Stoy, 2012, p. 465), (Rand et al., 2011, p. 202),
(Theresa Keoughan, Pegg & Martin, 2006, p. 15.2), (Tan,
2006, p. 50), (Proverbs, Holt & Olomolaiye, 1998, p. 203),
(Kumaraswamy & Chan, 1995, p. 217)
Chapter 3: Owner Participation and Success In Development Projects
56
Table 3.5: The list of indicators for the owner satisfaction and its sources (continued).
Indicators Sources
16. The overall quality of
the house compared to
the specifications
(Dekker et al., 2011, p. 494), (Cannalire, 2011, p. 47), (Frödell
et al., 2008, p. 27), (Metri, 2005, p. 61), (Ling & Liu, 2004, p.
1264), (Yasamis et al., 2002, p. 221), (Westerveld, 2003, p.
412), (Bubshait, 1994, p. 117)
17. The ability of the house
to execute its functions
(Chohan et al., 2011, p. 481), (Ahmad et al., 2009, p. 14),
(Mendonça & Bragança, 2007, p. 3442)
3.4 SUMMARY
Chapter 3 had continued on the previous chapter’s literature review as it had
highlighted the relevant literatures on owner participation as well as the sources for the
variables for this research. This chapter is an initial step for this research’s second objective
in determining the significance of owner participation for a successful detached housing
development project. The role of owner may differ depending on the nature of the
development or at which stage that development is in.
Chapter 2 and 3 had enabled this research to identify relevant research variables or
indicators. From the literature, there are 21 indicators that were identified for development
success factors, 22 indicators for development barriers, 29 indicators for owner participation
and 17 indicators for owner satisfaction. However, these indicators are not directly related to
the detached housing scenario. Therefore, a method had to be indentified in order to identify
which indicator is critical for the success of detached housing development in Malaysia. The
next chapter elaborates on the research method that had been utilised for this research.
Chapter 4: Research Method
57
CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHOD
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The previous chapter presented review of the extent literatures covering the research
problem. The review concluded that there was an apparent gap in terms of owner
participation in the successful development of detached housing in Malaysia. This chapter
explains on approach that shall be carried out for this research.
This chapter contained six main sections. After the introductory section, the second
section of this chapter identified the research framework based on the literature in previous
chapters. This section included the development of research questions based on the research
gaps identified in the literature review chapters. This was followed by the third section for the
formulation of the investigative questions which was used as the basis for the development of
the research instrument. This section was followed by the fourth section which focused on the
selection of the research method utilised to answer the research questions, namely
questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. It highlighted the reasons of the selection of
such methods as well as their advantages and disadvantages and their suitability for this
research. The fifth section emphasized on describing the methods itself. The methods’
structure sampling and distribution were discussed in detail in this section. This chapter will
be closed by the fourth section which is the summary section.
4.2 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
In the previous chapters, a review of the extent literature covering the research problem
was presented. Chapter 2 of the literature review explained about the detached housing as a
housing scheme in general. It also highlighted the success factors and barriers in developing
such a housing scheme. The review continued with the detached housing market in Malaysia.
It started off with a general overview of the residential property market in Malaysia which
then focuses to the trend of Malaysian detached housing market. With a relatively large
number of literatures discussing on success factors and barriers in construction in various
sectors, there were very limited sources discussing them in the residential sector. Even more
so for the detached housing sector, virtually the discussion of development success factors
and development barriers in this sector was non-existent. This tremendous literature gap on
detached houses was one of the reasons that justified the execution of this research.
Chapter 4: Research Method
58
The literature review continues to Chapter 3 with its focus on owner participation. It
began with the role of owner participation in construction projects in general. The review
continued on highlighting owner participation especially in housing development projects and
the challenges that must be faced in order for this concept to be implemented successfully.
However, the owner participation in the literature only mentioned about other types of
housing such as ready-built homes, customisable homes, homes for natural disaster victims
and such. By focusing in the housing development sector, it was discovered that the
literatures concerning the association owner participation and detached houses were very
limited. This had become more obvious in the Malaysian context. This obvious gap
rationalised a study to discover the significance of owner participation in detached housing
development projects.
Previous literatures in Section 2.2.2 had also discovered different ways to measure
development success. Such massive amount of indicators made it impossible for this research
to relate its findings to the “success” of detached housing development. From the literatures
in Section 2.2.4 it was discovered that the ultimate indicator for project success was the
owner’s satisfaction of the development. Even when all other indicators such as the budget,
duration and quality had not met its intended target, the owner’s satisfaction was the most
significant and everlasting success indicator of any development project.
From these extensive arguments, the review continued to a new section which listed all
the indicators that were extracted from the related literatures in their respective groups or
factors for this research. There were four themes or main factors involved namely
development success factors, development barriers, owner participation and owner
satisfaction. “Development success factors” were the success factors that positively
contributed to the development of detached houses. In the other hand, “development barriers”
were the negative factors that obstructed the smooth development of detached houses.
“Owner participation” was the involvement of detached house owners in developmental
stages of detached house project while ‘owner satisfaction” was the level of satisfaction of
detached house owners in certain aspect of the development. Based on the relevant literature,
this research was able to extract 21 indicators for development success factors, 22 indicators
for development barriers, 29 indicators for owner participation and 17 indicators for owner
satisfaction resulting in relatively large number of 89 operable indicators.
Chapter 4: Research Method
59
This section concluded that there was an apparent gap in terms of owner participation in
the successful development of detached housing in Malaysia. The investigation of Malaysian
owners’ participation in developing their detached house and how successful the development
in their perspective was not so far been researched to any degree at this point in time.
Therefore it was essential for this research to explore the relationship between owner’s role
and development success factors especially in the Malaysian scenario.
4.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The literature review from the previous chapters, and summarised in previous section,
had identified the gaps in the topic of owner participation and detached houses. This research
aims to address the gaps by developing develop a guideline to improve owner participation
for a successful detached housing development project in Malaysia. To achieve this aim, the
following research questions need to be answered. This research aims to address the gaps by
developing develop a guideline concerning owner participation for a successful detached
housing development project in Malaysia. To achieve this aim, the following research
questions need to be answered:
Question 1: What are the factors that would positively and negatively influence the
development of detached house?
This question was developed to identify the development success factors and
development barriers of detached house development that was identified by the first research
gap.
Question 2: How would owner participation affect the different developmental stages of
a detached house development?
Every development project had different sequential implementation stages. This
question explored the requirement of owner involvement in each detached house
developmental stages.
Question 3: What is the best approach in developing a successful detached housing
project in Malaysia?
From the result of the earlier questions, a guideline for a successful detached housing
development was prepared. It had served to guide future detached house owners in effectively
participating in the development of their detached house project. This will ensure their utmost
satisfaction as well as the overall success of the development.
Chapter 4: Research Method
60
Therefore, the research objectives (RO) that were derived from these research questions
are:
RO1: To identify critical development success factors and development barriers of
detached housing developments in Malaysia;
RO2: To determine the significance of owner participation for a successful detached
housing development;
RO3: To propose a guideline for owner participation for detached housing
development in Malaysia.
This research utilised a mixed methodology using quantitative and qualitative
approaches. Both of the methods were employed to achieve the first, second and third
research objective. The qualitative approach was used to validate and improve the model that
was created through the quantitative method that produced a more relevant guideline for a
successful detached housing development in Malaysia (Figure 4.1).
The following sections discussed the reasons for selecting the methods and how the
methods were implemented.
Chapter 4: Research Method
61
Figure 4.1: Research implementation.
VALIDATE
The Detached
Housing
Development
The Current
Practice of
Detached Housing
Development in
Malaysia
The Concept of
Owner
Participation and
Owner Satisfaction
Stage 1
Questionnaire Survey
via
By-hand, mail and
online
Stage 2
Semi-Structured
Interviews
Targeted Respondents:
1. Detached House Owners
2. Consultants and Contractors
Quantitative Data
(Descriptive, Factor
Analysis and
Structural Equation
Modelling using IBM
SPSS and AMOS)
Qualitative Data
(Content Analysis
using QSR NVivo 9)
Research Model
GUIDELINE
FORMULATION
LIT
ER
AT
UR
E
RE
VIE
W
RE
SE
AR
CH
ME
TH
OD
DA
TA
AN
AL
YS
IS
RE
SU
LT
Chapter 4: Research Method
62
4.4 SELECTION OF RESEARCH METHOD
The questionnaire survey was the first research method that was utilised. This method
was selected because it was designed to answer the exploratory questions like ‘what’, ‘who’
and ‘where’ (Yin, 2009) which was suitable for exploratory researches. Specifically, the
research instrument consisted of consolidated questionnaires that captured the profile of the
respondent, the participation of the owner in the development of their detached house and
their perception of the success of their detached housing development process.
Due to the fact that there were no previous questionnaires developed for on the topic of
detached houses, a new questionnaire was created to address the matter. However, the
contents of the questionnaire were based on the findings of previous researches to maintain its
reliability and consistency. The results of the questionnaire were analysed using quantitative
method including descriptive statistics, factor analysis and structural equation modelling. The
developed model was correlated to the results of the qualitative analysis for validation and
improvements.
The second research method that was the semi-structured interview. This method was
selected because semi-structured interview allows all participants to be asked the same
questions within a flexible framework (Dearnley, 2005, p. 22). During the semi-structured
interview sessions, the interview participants were asked with the same questions from an
interview guide prepared by the researcher. This maintained the reliability of their responses.
Even though the participants tend to elaborate more about their experiences and provide lots
of examples, the interview guide was necessary to ensure that the interview session did not
get too far-off the subject-matter of this research.
The data from the interviews was extracted and correlated to the results of the
quantitative analysis. Improvements were made to the model based from the information
derived from the qualitative methods. By integrating the findings of the qualitative analysis to
the quantitative analysis, the validity of this research was increased by the collection of data
that were rich in their explanation and analysis (Collis & Hussey, 2003, p. 65).
Chapter 4: Research Method
63
4.5 DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH METHOD
4.5.1 Questionnaire
The questionnaire survey was designed to highlight certain issues pertaining detached
housing development such as development success factors, development barriers, owner
participation, owner satisfaction and demographics. There were two variants of questionnaire
prepared for this survey. One version was for the detached house owners and the other was
for the consultants / contractors. Even though they were intended for different parties, the
questionnaire asked similar questions to the respondents. The only difference was on the way
the questions were being structured and a number of demographics questions that may apply
to house owner but not to the consultants/contractors or vice versa. This was to ensure that
both of the parties’ opinion could be integrated into this research.
Questionnaire Development
The questionnaire was developed based on the research variables identified from
literature review in Chapter 3, Section 3.3. It was originally developed in English language,
deriving its content from related literatures. After it was approved by the ethical committee,
the questionnaire had undergone translation process to Bahasa Malaysia. This was because
the level of English that was used in the questionnaire was too complex for the targeted
respondents. This deterred most of the targeted respondents from answering the questionnaire
or made them answer the questionnaire half-hearted. Due to the fact that the researcher had
reasonable command of both languages, the researcher had translated the questionnaire
himself. This was to ensure that not only the language was properly translated but more
importantly the context of the questionnaire was not distorted in the process. The translation
was then examined by a number of Malaysian PhD candidates.
The translated questionnaire was pre-tested by the academic staff of the Department of
Quantity Survey, Universiti Teknologi MARA in Perak, Malaysia. Being academician
themselves, they were quite familiar with the process of questionnaire development and were
quick to highlight further improvements that could be made to the questionnaire. This process
improve the reliability of the questionnaire. Only after their suggestions were taken into
account that the questionnaire could be administered to the targeted population.
Chapter 4: Research Method
64
Questionnaire Structure
The questionnaires that were implemented for this research can be referred in Appendix
B. The questionnaire was divided into 5 different sections:
Section 1: Success Factors for the Development of Detached House;
Section 2: Owner Participation in the Development of Detached House;
Section 3: Information of the Property;
Section 4: Satisfaction Level of the Detached House Owner;
Section 5: Information of the Respondents.
Section 1 was crucial for the first objective of this research. It identified the significant
development success factors and development barriers that affected the success of a detached
housing development. It explored the issue of development success factors and development
barriers through the identification of suitable indicators. These indicators generally provided
positive of negative effect to the development process as a whole.
Section 1 was divided into 2 questions. Question 1 was about the development success
factors itself. The development success factors generally provided positive effect to the
development process. Question 1 (of Section 1) required the respondents’ to tap on their past
experience on the factors that led to the successful development of their detached house. 21
indicators were extracted from literature to be graded by the respondents. On a Likert Scale of
1 (Important) to 4 (Not Important), the respondents had to determine which development
success factors were more important or significant in the successful development of their
detached houses. By referring to Section 3.3.1, the indicators in question 1 are listed in Table
4.1:
Chapter 4: Research Method
65
Table 4.1: Indicators of Question 1 (Development Success Factors).
Number Indicator Code
1 To complete the work within the time period time_1a
2 To complete the work within the budget budget_1b
3 To complete the work with the pre-determined
quality quality1_1c
4 Solid measures to control risks risk_1d
5 Measures for health and safety on site hns1_1e
6 To manage the project's impact towards the
environment enviro1_1f
7 To focus on customer's / client's / owner's satisfaction satisfy_1g
8 To achieve the scope or project's objectives scope_1h
9 To fulfil the technical specifications in the contract spec1_1i
10 To fulfil the real functional requirement of the
project function1_1j
11 To reflect the reputation of parties involved reputation_1k
12 To produce the revenue and profit that was planned profit_1l
13 To provide reward for all stakeholders benefit_1m
14 The stability of local political climate politic_1n
15 To have a solid, detailed and latest project plan plan_1o
16 To apply a good communication and response system communicate_1p
17 To value the involvement of project owner involve_1q
18 To acquire a competent project manager or
superintending officer projmngr_1r
19 To have a realistic project schedule schedule1_1s
20 To apply an effective monitoring and control system monitor1_1t
21 To achieve high performance from the consultants
and contractors perform_1u
The same process goes with Question 2 where the respondents had to determine which
of the 22 development barriers indicators that was more significant in giving a negative
impact towards the development of their detached house. By referring to Section 3.3.2, the
indicators in question 2 are listed in Table 4.2:
Chapter 4: Research Method
66
Table 4.2: Indicators of Question 2 (Development Barriers).
Number Indicator Code
1 The prediction of the property market prediction_2a
2 The competition amongst consultant or contractor competitor_2b
3 The financial projection of the project financial_2c
4 The condition of the construction site site1_2d
5 The revenue of consultants and contractors revenue_2e
6 The uncertainty of payment uncertainty_2f
7 The instability of the interest rate interest_2g
8 The verbal consent of design consent_2h
9
The compliance towards construction rules and
regulations regulation_2i
10 The application of planning approval permission_2j
11 The delay of project design designdelay_2k
12 The validation of quantity and specification quantity1_2l
13 The process of contractor selection selection_2m
14 The delays on-site sitedelay_2n
15 The delays of the contractor contrdelay_2o
16 The health and safety obligations hns2_2p
17 The failure of design or design changes designfail_2q
18 The impact towards the environment enviro2_2r
19 The shortage of manpower and construction material shortage_2s
20 The overall failure of the construction bldgfail_2t
21 The absence of assurance or warranty warranty_2u
22 The liability under the provision of law liability_2v
Section 2 of the questionnaire explored the level of owner participation in the
development of a detached house. Question 3 listed 29 development activities that were
usually executed in any development project. The respondents’ needed to specify the degree
of their involvement during each activity on a Likert Scale of 1 (Involved) to 4 (Not
Involved). Section 2 was important for objective 2 that it determined the significance of
owner participation for a successful detached housing development. By referring to Section
3.3.3, the indicators in question 3 are listed in Table 4.3:
Chapter 4: Research Method
67
Table 4.3: Indicators of Question 3 (Owner Participation).
Number Indicator Code
1 To appoint the consultants devteam_3a
2 To plan the project objective objective_3b
3 To prepare the organisational structure structure_3c
4 To plan the project schedule schedule2_3d
5 To estimate the cost of the project cost_3e
6 To acquire the source of funding finance_3f
7 To acquire the project site site2_3g
8 To plan the design of the structure strdesign_3h
9 To plan the internal and external design intextdesign_3i
10
To ensure the compliance towards the rules and
regulations of the local authority legalreq_3j
11 To determine the project specifications spec2_3k
12
To acquire the approval of the local authority to carry
out the project approval_3l
13 To prepare the quantity and specifications quantity2_3m
14 To prepare tender documents or contract document_3n
15 To manage the process of tender bid bidding_3o
16 To appoint the contractor selection_3p
17 To negotiate with the contractor negotiate_3q
18 To hand over the site to the contractor handover1_3r
19 To attend the site meetings sitemeet_3s
20 To monitor the progress of work monitor2_3t
21 To monitor the health and safety procedure on site hns3_3u
22 To monitor the process of progress payment payment_3v
23 To monitor variation orders variation_3w
24 To provide the certificate of practical completion completion_3x
25 To monitor extension of time claims eot_3y
26 To monitor liquidated and ascertain damages claims lad_3z
27
To monitor the repair works during defects liability
period dlp_3aa
28
To monitor the preparation of final account and final
certificate cf_3ab
29 To hand over the site to the owner handover2_3ac
Section 3 of the questionnaire gathered more information about the detached house
itself. It included ownership of house, location, size of house, development cost of the house,
actual market value of house, development duration, completion date, time extension, parties
appointed in the development process and the general design of the house. This section
provided extra information for further analysis on the respondents.
Chapter 4: Research Method
68
Section 4 of the questionnaire highlighted the respondents’ level of satisfaction in terms
of the overall development process and its product. Respondents needed to determine their
level of satisfaction on 17 criteria through a Likert Scale. Section 4 was the key to tie up
Section 1 and 2 in terms of how the available development success factors, development
barriers and owner participation generated a successful (and satisfying) detached housing
development for the respondents. By referring to Section 3.3.4, the indicators in question 15
are listed in Table 4.4:
Table 4.4: Indicators of Question 15 (Owner Satisfaction).
Number Indicator Code
1 The overall design of the house design_15a
2 The internal space of the house internal_15b
3 The area of house's space buildarea_15c
4 The numbers of bedroom bed_15d
5 The size of the master bedroom masterbed_15e
6 The size of the master bathroom masterbath_15f
7 The size of the living room livingfamily2_15g
8 The size of the kitchen kitchen_15h
9 The quality of construction materials that were used quality2_15i
10 The aspect of water supply water_15j
11 The aspect of electrical supply electric_15k
12 The aspect of ventilation in the house ventilation_15l
13 The exterior compound area outside the house compound_15m
14 The area of entrance road and drainage accessdrains_15n
15 The duration to complete the house delivery_15o
16
The overall quality of the house compared to the
specifications quality3_15p
17 The ability of the house to execute its functions function2_15q
Section 5 of the questionnaire captured profile and demographic information such as the
respondents’ age, gender, occupation, number of resident, household income and duration
they have lived in the house. For the owner version, it determined the characteristics of the
detached house resident as what was established in the literature such as income level,
education level and size of family. For the consultant & contractor version, it established the
type, the size and how long the business (that the respondents work with) was in operation.
This section was intended to be the last section the questionnaire so that the respondents’
were more comfortable revealing their more “sensitive” information now that they felt that
they were a part of this research.
Chapter 4: Research Method
69
Question 1, 2, 3 and 15 were analysed through factor analysis, structural equation
modelling (SEM) and semi-structured interview while the rest were analysed with descriptive
analysis.
Questionnaire Reliability and Validity
The questionnaire was tested to determine its reliability and validity. Reliability was
defined as the extent to which a questionnaire, test, observation or any measurement
procedure produces the same results on repeated trials. Validity was defined as the extent to
which the instrument measures what it purports to measure (Miller, NA, p. 3). The important
sections of the questionnaire namely section 1, 2 and 4 were designed to be analysed with
factor analysis and structural equation modelling. Therefore, it was vital to ensure the
reliability and validity of its questions.
Firstly, the questionnaire’s reliability was pretested by showing them to relevant experts
in the construction sector for comments. In this process, the experts reviewed the wording of
each questions and ensure that their meanings are clearly understood (Hernon & Schwartz,
2009, p. 73).
Next, the reliability of questions 1, 2, 3 and 15 were assessed by using inter-item
correlations or internal consistency. Internal consistency concerns the extent to which items
on the test or instrument are measuring the same thing. If the individual items are highly
correlated with each other you can be highly confident in the reliability of the entire scale.
(Miller, NA, p. 2). To do this, Cronbach’s Alpha was utilised because during scale
development with items that have several response options (i.e., 1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree) (Miller, NA, p. 2). Chapman (2003, p. 18) quoted Nunnally & Bernstein
(1994) who stated emphatically for the importance of internal consistency estimate
calculation for new measures or new uses of existing measures. From the analysis, it was
identified that all of the Cronbach’s alpha for the questions were above 0.7 (refer Appendix
C). This meant that the reliability of the related questions were considered “good” because the
general convention in research has been prescribed by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) who
state that one should strive for reliability values of .70 or higher was achieved (Miller, NA, p.
2).
The face and content validity were the main aspects in terms of validity, during the
development of this questionnaire. Face validity, which represented the researchers' appraisal
that the content reflects what they were measuring whereas content validity was concerned
Chapter 4: Research Method
70
with the representativeness of the measuring instrument in describing the content which it
was intended to measure (Hernon & Schwartz, 2009, p. 73). The content of the questionnaire
was created by referring to relevant theories and literatures. The measurement for
discriminant validity was discussed further in Chapter 6.
Questionnaire Respondents and Sampling
There were generally two types of respondents for the questionnaire survey:
Malaysian detached house owners;
Malaysian construction consultants and/or contractors.
The detached house owners had answered the questionnaire based on their past
experience of developing their own detached house. In the other hand, the consultants and/or
contractors had answered the questionnaire by referring to a particular detached house project
that they were involved with.
The first target population of this research were the Malaysian detached house owners.
According to the Preliminary Analysis conducted from data provided in the Quarterly
Residential Property Stock Report, there were about 400,000 units (396,918 units) of
detached housing in supply in Malaysia in the second quarter of 2009 alone (refer Table 4.5).
With the units being sold were within the margin of 46% to 55% (VPSD, 2010), it was
estimated that there were about 200,000 (or 50%) occupied detached housing units all over
Malaysia. Due to the limitations of this research, this entire population of about 200,000 was
quite improbable to be surveyed.
Chapter 4: Research Method
71
Table 4.5: The Summary of Supply of Residential Units by Type in Malaysia (Quarter 2 2009).
Source: Adapted from “NAPIC Overall Statistics,” by NAPIC, Valuation and Property Services Department, Ministry of Finance
Malaysia, (2005 - 2009), p. 4.
Chapter 4: Research Method
72
A sample is a subset of a population of interest that is defined by the researcher
(Konold, Fan, Penelope, Eva & Barry, 2010, p. 217). Rather than surveying the entire
population of about 200,000, sampling was the more practical approach in conducting this
research. It was expected that the sample needed was a fraction of the populace. Fraenkel and
Wallen (2007) suggested for correlational studies, a sample of at least 50 was deemed
necessary to establish the existence of a relationship. However, Israel (2003, p. 3)
recommended that for a population of over 100,000, a sample of 100 should suffice for a 10%
precision level where confidence level was 95% and p=.5. Therefore, it was established that a
target of minimum valid sample of 100 were expected to be obtained for the analysis of this
research.
The questionnaires were distributed to all of the states in Peninsular Malaysia with the
exception of the state of Perlis and Federal Territory of Putrajaya (refer Figure 4.2). This
resulted in the representation of the majority of detached housing supply in Peninsular
Malaysia.
Figure 4.2: The states and federal territories of Peninsular Malaysia. Retrieved 2011,
from www.malaysiacentral.com.
Chapter 4: Research Method
73
For the owner questionnaire, the sampling method for this research was derived through
the stratified sampling method. The first stage was to select the states of Peninsular Malaysia
that would be involved in this research. The second stage was to randomly select two districts
in the particular state and the third stage was to randomly select the respondents in the chosen
district.
As what was mentioned, the first stage of this sampling was to select the states for the
door-to-door distribution of the owner questionnaires. The researcher had identified the states
of ‘central’ and ‘northern’ region of Peninsular Malaysia for the door-to-door distribution of
the owner questionnaire. This was due to the fact that they were near to the researcher’s base
of operation which was in the state of Perak. The owner questionnaires for the ‘southern’
region of the peninsular were distributed by selected volunteers. The financial, time and
manpower limitations of this research had contributed to the researcher’s decision on this
matter. Therefore, the owner questionnaire distributions to the selected states were as
described in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6: The Selected Surveyed States of Peninsular Malaysia.
Peninsular Malaysia States Detached House Supply
(Quarter 2 2009)
Percentage of Supply in
Peninsular Malaysia
Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur 7,928 units 2.13%
The State of Selangor 42,776 units 11.53%
The State of Perak 59,472 units 16.03%
The State of Pulau Pinang 6,168 units 1.66%
The State of Kedah 34,726 units 9.36%
The State of Kelantan 15,883 units 4.28%
The State of Terengganu 9,958 units 2.68%
The State of Pahang 66,118 units 17.82%
The State of Johor 84,622 units 22.81%
The State of Melaka 12,163 units 3.28%
The State of Negeri Sembilan 30,616 units 8.25%
Source: Adapted from “NAPIC Overall Statistics,” by NAPIC, Valuation and Property
Services Department, Ministry of Finance Malaysia, (2005 - 2009), p. 4.
The combination of the selected 11 states resulted in a majority (96.86%) of the total
area for detached houses supply in Peninsular Malaysia (2nd Quarter 2009) (VPSD, 2005 -
2009). Based on that justification, these 11 states were selected for this research. One rather
small remote northern state of Perlis and the Federal Territory of Putrajaya were excluded
from this research due to the following considerations:
Chapter 4: Research Method
74
It was exceptionally financially uneconomical for this research to collect data from
this state;
The limitation of manpower and amenities made it inopportune to survey the
mentioned state;
It was a time consuming exercise considering the location of this state was far from
the researcher’s point of operation;
The state of Perlis and the Federal Territory of Putrajaya had the lowest number of
detached houses in Peninsular Malaysia during the second quarter 2009 (VPSD,
2005 - 2009, p. 4).
The second stage was to select two districts of the selected states. Two districts of each
state were chosen where the sampling was extracted. Next, the researcher had randomly select
detached house owners from the chosen district to be given with the detached house owner
questionnaire. The questionnaire was either given personally to the owner or through the
house’s tenants or inserted in their letter box. Depending on the density of detached houses in
a particular district, the amount of the distributed questionnaire for each district varied
between 10 to 100 pieces per district. The sampling process for detached house owners was
described in detail in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7: Sampling Method of Questionnaire Distribution for Detached House
Owners.
ST
RA
TIF
IED
SA
MP
LIN
G Stage 1
Select State
Stage 2
Select District
Stage 3
Select Respondents
Federal Territory of Kuala
Lumpur
Damansara and
Setiawangsa
Ran
dom
Det
ached
House
Ow
ner
s
(100
< x
< 1
0)
per
dis
tric
t
The State of Selangor Klang and Kuala
Selangor
The State of Perak Perak Tengah and Kinta
The State of Pulau Pinang Bukit Mertajam and
Kepala Batas
The State of Kedah Kuala Muda and Kulim
The State of Kelantan Kota Bharu and Bachok
The State of Terengganu Kuala Terengganu and
Besut
The State of Pahang Kuantan and Maran
The State of Johor Muar and Batu Pahat
The State of Melaka Melaka Tengah and Jasin
The State of Negeri
Sembilan
Seremban and Rembau
Chapter 4: Research Method
75
For the consultants / contractors questionnaires, the sampling was made through simple
random sampling. This was because most of the consultant & contractor companies
congregated in major cities throughout Malaysia and advertised their company through all
types of public media. Therefore, any company that had listed their particulars in any
publications such as yellow pages, newspaper, magazines as well as publishing them online
via company websites, business websites and such had an equal chance to receive a copy of
the consultant & contractor questionnaire. Those who did not prefer to answer the
questionnaire physically, an online questionnaire form was also available for them. Besides
that, any previous consultant & contractor companies that the researcher had contact with as
well as referrals from other individuals were also taken into consideration to be a respondent
in this research. These more familiar consultants / contractors were most likely to be handed
the questionnaire by hand to improve on the response rate of the survey.
Questionnaire Distribution
The questionnaire distribution was executed physically and online between January and
May 2011. The questionnaire pamphlets were distributed via mail, by hand and through
online methods throughout the states of Peninsular Malaysia. For the questionnaires that were
given to the detached house owners, they could only be distributed on a door-to-door basis as
currently there were no available database that specified the locations and addresses of
detached housing locations throughout Malaysia. There were several ways identify the
general locations of these types of houses:
Asking the local population of the particular area;
Through search on printed and online media;
Enquiring the Local Authorities.
Due to the limitation of this research, only 8 out of 12 states in Peninsular Malaysia
were explored personally for door-to-door distribution of the owner questionnaire. This
resulted in the questionnaire distribution (by the researcher) of 65.49% of the total area for
detached houses supply in Peninsular Malaysia. The blue line in Figure 4.3 indicates the route
(thus the states) that the researcher took for the door-to-door distribution of the detached
house owner questionnaire. For the states of Negeri Sembilan, Melaka and Johor, the
researcher had appointed volunteers to assist in distributing questionnaires (by hand) to the
detached house owners in the particular states (indicated by red arrows in Figure 4.3). The
Chapter 4: Research Method
76
combination of the questionnaire distribution by the researcher and the volunteers resulted in
to coverage of 96.86% of the total area for detached houses supply in Peninsular Malaysia.
Legend:
Code
Survey Area
District State
A Klang, Shah Alam, Petaling Jaya Selangor
K Damansara and Setiawangsa Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur
C Seri Iskandar, Batu Gajah Perak
D Bukit Mertajam, Kepala Batas Pulau Pinang (Penang)
E Kulim, Sungai Petani Kedah
F Besut Terengganu
G Bachok Pengkalan Chepa Kelantan
H Kuala Terengganu Terengganu
I Kuantan Pahang
J Jengka Pahang
L Seremban dan Rembau Negeri Sembilan
M Bandar Melaka and Jasin Melaka
N Muar and Batu Pahat Johor
Figure 4.3: The survey run for the door-to-door distribution of detached house owner
questionnaire. Retrieved 2011 from www.maps.google.com.my.
Chapter 4: Research Method
77
Besides the door-to-door type of distribution, questionnaires were also mailed to the
respondents especially for the consultant & contractor questionnaires. These questionnaires
were distributed via mail due to the fact that their locations and addresses could be
established by means of printed and online databases, company websites, yellow pages as
well as personal contacts. Therefore, the consultant & contractor questionnaires were
relatively easier to be distributed all over Peninsular Malaysia. However, the response rate via
mail was relatively lower than the door-to-door method and its distribution costs were
relatively higher.
Online methods such as email, questionnaire website services and social network
websites were utilised to assist to improve the questionnaire response rate. However, the
amount of questionnaires that were sent out via these methods was limited. The responses
were sometimes unreliable and needed to be checked thoroughly before being accepted into
this research.
Questionnaire Data Management
The data that the researcher had received came from a number of sources namely via
by-hand, post, email, online questionnaire survey or even internet social websites. When the
response came in, the researcher made a record of the response such as its register number,
the date it was received, its format and such. The response was keyed in straight into the
SPSS program. This was to minimise the workload of keying it in all in one time. It also gave
the researcher a glimpse of the preliminary data trend. The saved SPSS file had three backup
copies just in case the original file malfunctioned. After the researcher was satisfied that the
requirement for minimum response were achieved (refer page 68, (Israel, 2003, p. 3)), the
data was cleaned and proofread.
4.5.2 Semi-Structured Interviews
Through semi-structured interviews, the more in-depth explanatory questions were
reviewed. The result of the semi-structured interviews assisted in the improvement and
validation of the model which had established objective three (which was the development of
a successful detached housing development guideline in Malaysia). Selected participants from
the questionnaire sessions were invited to be further interviewed in a semi-structured
interview session. An appointment with the participant was arranged to conduct the interview.
Their responses were written down onto the interview sheet as well as being recorded through
a digital voice recorder. Based on the interview, qualitative analyses were carried out to
Chapter 4: Research Method
78
improve and validate the findings of the model that was previously solely based on the
questionnaire responses. The utilisation of qualitative analysis software such as QSR Nvivo
assisted in speeding up the process.
There were two types of participants required for the semi-structured interviews. They
were the detached house owners and (construction) consultant professionals or contractors.
For the first party, they were selected from detached house owners who had extensive
professional experience in construction industry as well as vast academic knowledge in their
area of expertise. Most of the participants had a number of years practicing in the
construction industry as well as being involved in delivering their industrial knowledge to the
education world whether as academicians, practical training mentor, guest speakers and such.
This was to ensure that the selected detached house owners attempted to answer the questions
based on their knowledge and experience rather than blunt perception and feelings.
For the second party, they were selected from consultant professionals who had
practiced in their field for a number of years. They needed to be involved in at least one
detached house development project in order to be selected in this interview. This was
because they were required to recall relevant information about the particular project during
the course of the interview. An involvement with the academia was a plus so that they were
able to balance between the theory and what was being practiced in the real world. Besides
from personal contacts, the researcher obtained suitable candidates from previous
participants. This was to ensure that only the cream of the practitioners was included in the
interview sessions.
In terms of translating, two out of the eight participants spoke English while the rest
were more comfortable speaking Bahasa Melayu (Malay Language). It was inappropriate for
the interviewer to compel the participants to speak English. Furthermore, the Malay language
that they were using was more of a “common language” version rather than the proper
academic version of the language. Therefore, initiating a translator to translate the responses
from this kind of Malay slang to English was not the best solution. This was due to the fact
that not only the translation might not be accurately translated but the context of the responses
may become distorted. According to Dearnley (2005, p. 27), researcher should transcribe the
data to become totally immersed with it. This would reflect sound research practice and
negates the problem of confidentiality and/or ethical issues.
Chapter 4: Research Method
79
4.5.3 Ethics and Limitations
The execution of this survey was conducted to strict ethical guideline that was required
by the university’s human ethics research committee (refer Appendix A). However, it did not
cover other ethical issues that were related to the respondent’s culture or way of life.
Therefore, the researcher had used his/her own discretion in dealing with ethics and the
limitations of the respondents. This was exceptionally crucial in the interview process. Due to
the fact that most of the participants were busy people, the time that was available to conduct
the interview was very limited and there were number interruptions during the conduct of the
interview. In addition, some of the information of a particular project that the participants
were referring to was confidential and cannot be disclosed by the participant. The participant
revealed extra information to the researcher but only after the voice recorder was switched
off. However, the researcher had to make sure that any information that the participants did
not wish to be incorporated into this research was not included. These were some of the
limitations that the researcher had to work with in order to obtain first-hand information from
the professionals on the field.
4.6 SUMMARY
This chapter explained about the research framework, research questions and the choice
of research method of this research. The research framework as the backbone of this research
were carefully formulated bearing in mind its objectives and limitations. From the gaps
identified in the literature review, research questions were formulated. The reasons and
suitability of selecting any particular method were explained in detail. The execution of the
selected method was described step-by-step to ensure the practicability of the method. Next,
Chapter 5 explored the initial step of analysis for the results that were obtained from the
survey run.
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
80
CHAPTER 5: MODEL COMPONENT
ANALYSIS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The previous chapter presented about the research framework, research questions and
the research method. This chapter describes the quantitative approach namely the descriptive
analysis and factor analysis. It is the first step in addressing the first and second objectives of
this research. This chapter starts with the description of the sample background, followed by
the explanation on data analysis procedures. This chapter then focuses on the descriptive and
factor analysis itself being implemented on the four main factors of this research namely the
Development Success Factors, Development Barriers, Owner Participation and Owner
Satisfaction.
The Northern and Central States of Peninsular Malaysia were chosen as this research’s
area of study. This was due to the time and cost limitations of this research. The states that
were involved in this research include the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, the state of
Selangor, Perak, Pulau Pinang, Kedah, Kelantan, Terengganu, Pahang, Johor, Melaka, and
Negeri Sembilan. According to the literature, these eleven states represent the majority
96.86% of the available stock of detached houses in Malaysia for the second quarter of 2009
(VPSD, 2005 - 2009).
There were two versions of the questionnaire with almost similar questions being put
forward. One version was for the detached house owners while the other one was for the
development consultants and contractors who had previous experiences in detached housing
development. The questions between the two versions were mostly the same but some of
them need to be rephrased to reflect to the respondents whether they were the owners or the
consultants / contractors. The analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Version 19 and can
be referred upon in Appendix D and E.
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
81
5.2 SAMPLE BACKGROUND
Table 5.1 indicates from which state the questionnaire originates from. This provides an
overall view of the respondents’ distribution all across Malaysia. In addition, it establishes the
number of responses that were utilised for the quantitative analysis part of this research
(n=219).
Over one thousand two hundred and forty eight (1248) hand-distributed, mail and
online questionnaires were distributed with two hundred and nineteen (219) usable responses
were received representing 17.55% in terms of response rate. Out of the two hundred and
nineteen responses, 53% were detached house owners, 28% development consultants, 9%
construction contractors, 3% from other construction disciplines and 7% respondents of
unstated background.
Table 5.1: The overall questionnaire responses.
state_5b
States Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Kedah 2 .9 1.4 1.4
Pulau Pinang 25 11.4 16.9 18.2
Perak 50 22.8 33.8 52.0
Selangor 38 17.4 25.7 77.7
WP Kuala Lumpur 8 3.7 5.4 83.1
Negeri Sembilan 2 .9 1.4 84.5
Melaka 2 .9 1.4 85.8
Johor 2 .9 1.4 87.2
Kelantan 8 3.7 5.4 92.6
Terengganu 5 2.3 3.4 95.9
Pahang 6 2.7 4.1 100.0
Total 148 67.6 100.0
Not Stated 71 32.4
Total 219 100.0
5.2.1 Owner Respondents’ Background
The following information was exclusively referring to the detached house owners of
this research. There were one hundred and seventeen (117) respondents of this category. In
terms of age, it seemed that the age of the owner respondents were normally distributed. The
normal curve started at 30 years old, reached its peak at 50 years old and resided back at 68
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
82
years old. This may be the case because only those with higher than average income were
able to own detached houses. This usually meant that only those who had climbed the carrier
ladder who could afford houses of this stature. The highest numbers of detached house
owners were aged between 48 to 51 years old, followed by the 40 to 60 years old and the 30
to 70 years old. The owners who were at 23 and 73 years old could be considered as outliers.
Out of the one hundred and seventeen respondents, three respondents did not provide any
answer for this question.
Interestingly 70% of the detached house owner respondents were males and 30% were
females. It needs to be highlighted that the questionnaire itself was prepared so that only the
owners would be able to answer it. One respondent did not provide any answer for this
question. Majority of the detached house owners who participated in this research were staff
of fully-government agencies. This may because that they were the only group of detached
house owners who were available or interested enough to participate in this research. One
respondent did not provide any answer for this question.
The next information was about the size of the owner’s household. It was discovered
that 61% of the owner had a household of 4 to 6 persons. This was followed by 7 to 9 persons
(24%), 1 to 3 persons (14%) and 9 persons (1%). One respondent did not provide any answer
for this question.
In terms of household income, a strong 42% of the owner had a monthly household
income of between RM5,000 to RM9,999 (AU$1,572 to AU$3,143). This was followed by
RM2,000 to RM4,999 (AU$629 to AU$1,572) (27%), RM10,000 to RM14,999 (AU$3,144 to
AU$4,716) (20%), RM15,000 (AU$4,716) and above (6%) and less than RM2,000 (AU$629)
(5%). This information confirmed the earlier notion that only those with higher than average
income were able to own detached houses. One respondent did not answer this question.
In terms of duration of stay, the respondents were requested to state for how long the
owners had reside in the house since the year of 2001. Majority of the owners (47%) had
reside in their property for more than 7 years, 20% had lived there between 5 to 7 years, 17%
had lived between 1 to 3 years, 12% had lived between 3 to 5 years and 4% had lived in their
house for a year or less. One respondent did not answer this question.
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
83
5.2.2 Consultant & Contractor Respondents’ Background
The following information was exclusively referring to the representative of consultants
or contractors companies who were involved in the development of detached houses. There
were one hundred and two (102) respondents in this category. In terms of age, most of the
respondents were in their mid-20s (8% - 17%). This was because most of the staffs who were
directly involved with detached house developments were the young professionals who were
required to be involved hands-on regarding the project. Interestingly, senior staffs were also
keen on sharing their experience (4% - 6%) followed by the mid-aged staffs at 2% - 5%. Out
of the one hundred and two respondents, sixteen respondents did not provide any answer for
this question.
70% of the consultant & contractor respondents were males while 30% were females.
15 respondents did not provide any answer for this question. A good majority of them were
professionals (73%) while others were technical, management and administration staffs. 15
respondents did not provide any answer for this question. 71% of the respondents were
construction consultants. These may include architects, engineers, quantity surveyors and
others. 21% were construction contractors while the rest were construction developers,
construction sub-contractors and others. 15 respondents did not provide any answer for this
question.
For the respondents who work for construction contractors, an extra question was
prepared for them. They were required to specify the class of their organisation based on the
classification of Construction Development Industry Board of Malaysia (CIDB). G7 was the
highest contractor classification while G1 was the lowest (refer Table 5.2). 90% of the
contractor respondents were in G7 contractor class while others were G2 and G1 classes.
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
84
Table 5.2: CIDB Contractor Grade Classification.
Grade Tendering Capacity Paid Up Capital* /
Net Capital Worth**
Personnel Technical
Requirement#
G7 No Limit RM750,000.00
(AU$235,800.00)
1 Group A & 1 Group B (Both
minimum 5 years experience )
or 2 Group A (One of them
must minimum 5 years
experience)
G6 Not Exceeding
RM10 Million
(AU$3.14 Million)
RM500,000.00
(AU$157,200.00)
1 Group A & 1 Group B (One
of them must minimum 3 years
experience)
G5 Not Exceeding
RM5 Million
(AU$1.57 Million)
RM250,000.00
(AU$78,600.00)
1 Group A or 1 Group B
(Minimum 5 years experience)
G4 Not Exceeding
RM3 Million
(AU$0.94 Million)
RM150,000.00
(AU$47,160.00)
1 Group B
G3 Not Exceeding
RM1 Million
(AU$0.31 Million)
RM50,000.00
(AU$15,720.00)
Course Certificate In
Construction Related Fields /
Experience
G2 Not Exceeding
RM500,000.00
(AU$157,200.00)
RM25,000.00
(AU$7,850.00)
Course Certificate In
Construction Related Fields /
Experience
G1 Not Exceeding
RM200,000.00
(AU$62,880.00)
RM5,000.00
(AU$1,572.00)
Course Certificate In
Construction Related Fields /
Experience
Source: Adapted from “CIDB Contractor Grade Classification,” by CIDB, (NA),
Construction Industry Development Board Malaysia, Table. 1.
In terms of how long their organisation was in business, 57% of the respondents
indicated that the organisation that employed them was in operation between 10 to 25 years.
This was followed by organisations that was in business for more than 25 years (27%) and
organisations that was in business for more than 5 years up to 10 years (8%). 17 respondents
did not answer this question. Next, the respondents were required to indicate the size of the
respondents’ organisation in terms of the numbers of permanent staffs. 39% of the consultant
& contractor respondents indicated that the organisation that employed them had between 10
to 24 permanent staffs in their organisation. This was followed by less than 10 persons (19%),
25 to 49 persons and 50 to 99 persons (both at 16.7%) and more than 100 persons (8.3%).
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
85
5.2.3 Respondents’ Detached House Development Background
This section was prepared to describe about the detached houses that was owned by a
detached house owner or worked upon by a consultants / contractors respondent. There were
two hundred and nineteen (219) respondents in this category. The first question for this
section was about the ownership of the house. The respondents were required to specify
whether the current owner of the house was the first owner. 82% of the respondents indicated
that the house that they were referring to was owned by its first owner.
In terms of the location of the respondents’ house, 33.8% was located in the state of
Perak. This was followed by the state of Selangor (25.7%), Pulau Pinang (16.9%), Kuala
Lumpur (5.4%), Kelantan (5.4%), Pahang (4.1%) and Terengganu (3.4%). The states of
Negeri Sembilan, Melaka, Johor and Kedah were below the 2% mark.
In terms of the size of the respondents’ housing plot, 20.1% of the respondents had land
plot between 5001 to 6000 square feet. This was followed by 2001 to 3000 square feet
(17.7%) and 1001 to 2000 square feet (16.5%). Other land plots up to 12,000 square feet were
below the 10% response mark. There were 8 cases (4.8%) of outliers where the size of the
land plots have exceeded 14,001 square feet and above.
Based on the comparison of the respondents’ estimated contract value and actual
development cost there were evidences suggesting that there was a slight chance (21%) that
the cost of developing detached houses may increase as the project commences. From 174
owners’ detached houses observed, 36 detached house projects had experienced an increment
of development cost over the term of its development.
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
86
In terms of the duration of respondents’ detached houses development period, 30.6%
were completed between 1 ½ year and 2 years. This was followed by the period of between 6
months up to 1 year (25.4%) and 1 year up to 1 ½ year (19.1%). 15% of the detached houses
need more than 2 years to be completed. In the contrary, 9.8% of the detached houses only
need less than or up to 6 months to be completed.
Next, the respondents’ detached houses completion year was surveyed. The houses
must be completed between the year 1990 and 2012. It was discovered that the trend of
owning detached houses continued to surge. By referring to Figure 5.2, it could be observed
that the number respondents that had their house completed up to the year 1999 were around
1% to 2% a year. This trend was steadily climbing to about 5% to 8% per year after the year
2000 and spiked up to 12% to 16% by the year 2010. This survey was carried out between the
month of January and May 2011 so most likely the data for 2011 and 2012 was incomplete as
the houses were still in their construction stage. From this bar chart it could be seen as far as
the surveyed respondents in this research were concerned, the trend of owning detached
houses was on the rise.
Figure 5.1: The percentage of respondents’ house completed between 1990 to 2012.
1.3 0.6
0.0 0.6
1.3 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9
1.3
5.1 5.7 5.7
6.3
4.4
6.3
8.2
5.1
7.6
12.7
15.8
3.8
0.6
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
Val
id %
Completion Year (n = 219)
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
87
However, not all of the respondents’ detached house developments were able to meet its
completion date on time. From the analysis, 39% of the respondents have given time
extensions to the contractors for the completion of their project. Majority of them (55%) gave
between 2 weeks up to 2 months for the contractor to complete the job. This was followed by
those who gave contractors 3 months and 6 months to complete their task. There were 5
extreme cases where it took a year or more for the contractor to complete the development.
In terms of the parties that were appointed for the respondents’ detached housing
development project, the architect who was usually being appointed first (78%, n=131). This
was followed by the engineer (38%, n=56), the quantity surveyor (30%, n=34), the contractor
(71%, n=58) and other professionals such as interior designer, landscape architects or even
lawyers (83%, n=19).
In terms of design, the interior partitions of a detached house amongst the 219
respondents were described in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3: The general design for the majority of the respondents’ house (according to
the number of response).
Room Quantity n
Wet Kitchen 1 165
Living Room (Family) 1 133
Dry Kitchen 1 133
Living Room (Guest) 1 130
Open Parking Lot 1 112
Bedroom 4 79
Study Room 1 76
Bathroom + Toilet 3 71
Guest Bedroom 1 60
Laundry Room 1 57
Toilet Only 1 46
Prayer Room 1 46
Garage 1 35
Others 1 35
Powder Room 1 27
Swimming Pool 1 27
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
88
5.3 DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
This research utilised a number of analysis processes for the data obtained from the
completed questionnaires. Section 3 and 5 of the questionnaire contained 17 to 18 questions.
They were analysed using descriptive analysis since they only contained background
information of the respondents and their property. This included the usage of mean and
standard deviation.
Section 1, 2 and 4 of the questionnaire consists of 4 main factors. The indicators were
extracted into relevant factors depending to which questions it was related to 21 indicators
were loaded into question 1, 22 indicators in question 2, 29 indicators in question 3 and 17
indicators in question 15 which totals up to 89 indicators (details of indicators are stated in
Section 4.5.1). These indicators were extracted from relevant literatures. Only indicators that
were mentioned for three times or more by different literatures were extracted for this
research. No other ‘pre-analysis’ were conducted for the selection of these indicators. This
was decided so that the indicators will not be prematurely ejected from this research thus
providing them an equal chance to be selected into the proposed model.
These indicators (in their relevant main factors) were weighted by the respondents
through the implementation of questionnaire survey. Due to the numerous amounts of
indicators, it was quite difficult to incorporate all of them into the proposed model. Therefore,
the first stage of the quantitative analysis employed was the exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
which the Cronbach’s alpha was utilised for preliminary reliability and validity of the primary
measurements. The indicators (in their relevant main factors) were grouped into constructs (or
components) using EFA based on the weightage provided by the respondents.
The second stage of the quantitative analysis was implementation of the structural
equation modelling (SEM) to the results of the EFA. SEM was used to confirm the
measurements as well as accessing the relationship of its indicators. There were two steps in
the SEM analysis. In the first step, the four main factors (with its constructs and indicators)
were separately analysed using SEM. Irrelevant indicators were removed to make the factor
as fit as possible. This step was important because had not only it had reduced the number of
indicators but also had assisted in the process of making the proposed model to fit a bit more
uncomplicated. In the second step, the four main factors (with its constructs and indicators)
were combined as a proposed model based on the research’s theoretical framework and
objectives. This model was analysed again using SEM and made to fit.
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
89
The proposed model was correlated to the findings of the qualitative analysis and
updated and validated accordingly based on the response of the interview participant.
Irrelevant indicators were replaced with more suitable indicators of the same component and
the entire updated model was analysed again (using SEM) and made to fit. This step was
crucial because as a model gets more complicated, there were many alternatives for the model
to fit (or competitive fit) (Hair, Balck, Babin & Anderson, 2006, p. 756). Therefore, by
validating the model produced by SEM and the responses of the interview participants, the
findings in the model was more reflective to the situation of the real world.
5.3.1 Data Preparation
Normality is of the assumptions required to carry out structural equation modelling
analysis (Byrne, 2010, p. 102). Mutum (2011, para. 3) recommended that normally the
skewness should be within the range ±1 for normal distribution while for kurtosis, the value
should be within range ±3 for normal distribution. However, Kline (1998) had indicated that
skewness values in excess of ±3 and Kurtosis values in excess of ±10 represent significant
non-normal distributions. Therefore, the data for this research were inspected for normality
by using skewness and kurtosis and it was discovered that the data had not violate the
limitations of non-normal distributions as mentioned above. In addition, normality would
usually have serious effects in small samples (fewer than 50 cases), but the impact effectively
diminishes when sample sizes reach 200 cases or more (Hair et al., 2006, p. 86) (n=219).
Even if the distributions of the sample variables are not wildly non-normal the
application of “Maximum Likelihood” (ML) would produce results are probably trustworthy
for most purposes (Malthouse, 2001, p. 80). This is due to the fact that the ML estimation that
was frequently employed in SEM analyses, has demonstrated robustness with respect to
violation of the conditions of normality, and possesses reasonable sample size requirements
(Bentler & Chou, 1987, p. 89). If the technique has a robustness to departures from normality,
then the original variables may be preferred for the comparability in the interpretation phase
(Hair et al., 2006, p. 89).
The missing values were replaced by using series mean method due to the fact that the
number of missing data was below 10%. According to Hair (2006, p. 744), at this low level
any imputation method can be applied. Series mean method replaces missing values with the
mean for the entire series. In terms of outliers, it was highly unlikely the respondents will
produce any outliers as they were only required to produce responses between 1 to 4 for
question 1, 2, 3 and 15.
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
90
5.3.2 Descriptive Analysis
Descriptive statistics are numbers that summarize the data with the purpose of
describing what occurred in the sample (Thompson, 2009, p. 57). It was the most basic
method of analysis. It is commonly used to summarise or ‘describe’ a certain sample and
presented graphically in forms of bar charts, pie charts, graphs and others. Frequency
distribution, mean, median, mode, range, and standard deviation are the most commonly used
statistics for accomplishing the task of descriptive data analysis (Thompson, 2009, p. 59). In
survey analysis, descriptive analysis is utilised for a number of purposes. It is used to describe
demographic features of the surveyed population for generalisation purpose. In addition, the
descriptive analysis is also used indicate the detached house development process and
characteristics as well as in identifying the general design and its process during the course of
the development. However useful it seems to be, the use of descriptive analysis as a sole
means of ascribing function to behaviour is not recommended (Sloman, 2010, p. 20).
5.3.3 Factor Analysis
Introduction
The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is a statistical tool that was widely used to
orderly simplify interrelated measures (Suhr, 2006, p. 1). It is unique among multivariate
statistical procedures in that it was developed mainly by psychologists in order to test
hypotheses about the correspondence between scores on observed (manifest) variables, or
indicators, and hypothetical constructs (latent variables), or factors, presumed to affect those
scores (Kline, In press, p. 2). In other words, the primary purpose of EFA is to define the
underlying structure among the variables in an analysis (Hair et al., 2006, p. 104).
The selection of EFA was made after careful consideration of the available literatures in
this matter. Since this research utilised the usage of research questions instead of hypothesis,
it was more of an exploratory study where the application of EFA is appropriate. Specifically,
EFA was implemented on research question one, two and three of this research. (Hurleyl et
al., 1997, p. 668) confirms this by citing (Kelloway, 1995) that EFA is often considered to be
more appropriate than Confirmatory Factor analysis (CFA) in the early stages of scale
development because CFA does not show how well your items load on the non-hypothesized
factors.
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
91
In simpler terms the objectives of EFA are to determine the number of common factors
influencing a set of measures and to establish the strength of the relationship between each
factor and each observed measure. While the primary objective of a CFA is to determine the
ability of a predefined factor model to fit an observed set of data (DeCoster, 1998, p. 5).
Factor Loadings
The factor loading method that was selected to determine factor loading was the
‘principal component method’. Being of one of the most widely used method, principal
component method seeks values of the loadings that bring the estimate of the total
communality as close as possible to the total of the observed variances (Tryfos, 1997, p. 16) .
For the factor rotation, the ‘varimax’ method was used to maximise the dispersion of loadings
within factors resulting in more interpretable clusters of factors (Field, 2005, p. 644). It
discourages the detection of factors influencing all variables (Tryfos, 1997, p. 13).
In terms of the actual factor loading, the loading of 0.40 was utilised due to the sample
size of this research that exceeded 200 (n = 219). Stevens (2002, p. 322) recommends that for
a sample size of 200 a loading greater than 0.364 can be considered significant. In simple
terms, for very large samples small loadings can be considered statistically meaningful (Field,
2005, p. 644). After the EFA was executed with the intended loadings, the researcher would
need to identify the variables with the greatest contribution to a factor and assigns a “name”
to represent the factor’s conceptual meaning (Hair et al., 2006, p. 164).
5.4 Factor 1: Development Success Factors
The following were the results of the descriptive and factor analysis on the respondents’
response about development success factors.
5.4.1 Descriptive Analysis
Question 1 consisted of 21 development success factors that the respondents had
determined its importance for the success of their detached housing development. The
development success factors indicators were ranked based on the mean and standard
deviation values. The detailed result of factor analysis on Development Success Factors
indicators was described in Table 5.4.
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
92
Table 5.4: Development success factors indicators ranked based on their means and
standard deviations.
Rank Indicator Code Mean
Std.
Dev.
1 Quality according to contract quality1_1c 1.12 .343
2 Customer / client / owner satisfaction satisfy_1g 1.16 .384
3 Cost according to budget budget_1b 1.17 .425
4 Complete within time time_1a 1.20 .455
5 Technical specifications spec1_1i 1.24 .447
6 Achieving scope / objective scope_1h 1.28 .498
7 Good performance by suppliers / contractors
/ consultants
perform_1u 1.28 .490
8 Health and safety measures hns1_1e 1.31 .562
9 Effective monitoring / control monitor1_1t 1.36 .534
10 Functional requirements function1_1j 1.36 .535
11 Risk containment risk_1d 1.40 .535
12 Competent project manager projmngr_1r 1.40 .568
13 Realistic schedule schedule1_1s 1.45 .559
14 Strong / detailed plan kept up to date plan_1o 1.48 .638
15 Good communication / feedback communicate_1p 1.50 .645
16 Environmental impact enviro1_1f 1.54 .600
17 Reputation reputation_1k 1.58 .689
18 Revenue and profits profit_1l 1.60 .685
19 User / client involvement involve_1q 1.61 .743
20 Benefit to stakeholder benefit_1m 1.79 .792
21 Political stability politic_1n 2.32 .938
Scale: 1 (Important), 2 (Quite Important), 3 (Less Important), 4 (Not Important)
5.4.2 Factor Analysis
All of the 21 indicators associated of the Development Success Factors were analysed
using factor analysis for factor extraction. The components with an eigenvalue of greater than
one were extracted.
All of the 21 indicators were able to make the 0.40 cut-off factor loading. They were
extracted into five components which accounted for 62.89% of the total variance. For the
indicator with loading present in two or more components, only the higher loading were
considered for factor extraction. Interestingly, the quality factor (quality1_1c) had almost
made it to component four which included cost (budget_1b) and time (time_1a) which was
the three main parameters in the construction industry (Bowen et al., 2002, p. 48). The
detailed result of factor analysis on Development Success Factors component was described
in Table 5.5. Only the shortened descriptions of the indicators were used from this stage
onwards. Full descriptions of the indicators may be reviewed in Section 4.5.1.
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
93
Table 5.5: The result of factor analysis loadings on Development Success Factors
component.
Rotated Component Matrixa
Indicator Code Component
1 2 3 4 5
Achieving scope / objective scope_1h .772
Technical specifications spec1_1i .738
Functional requirements function1_1j .684
Customer / client / owner
satisfaction
satisfy_1g .617
User / client involvement involve_1q .587
Quality according to contract quality1_1c .537 .432
Effective monitoring / control monitor1_1t .790
Realistic schedule schedule1_1s .788
Good performance by
suppliers / contractors /
consultants
perform_1u .726
Competent project manager projmngr_1r .668
Strong / detailed plan kept up
to date
plan_1o .480 .417
Revenue and profits profit_1l .766
Benefit to stakeholder benefit_1m .737
Reputation reputation_1k .414 .633
Political stability politic_1n .631
Good communication communicate_1p .462 .541
Cost according to budget budget_1b .823
Complete within time time_1a .734
Health and safety measures hns1_1e .761
Environmental impact enviro1_1f .685
Risk containment risk_1d .568
Eigenvalues 7.595 1.598 2.449 1.413 1.151
% of variance 36.164 7.611 6.901 6.729 5.483
Cumulative variance explained 36.164 43.776 50.677 57.406 62.888
Cronbach’s alpha 0.792 0.824 0.807 0.650 0.669
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 7 iterations.
As can be seen in Table 5.5, the first component that the factor analysis produced was
interpretable and significant which explained 36.16% of the variance with an eigenvalue of
7.60. The indicators for this factor were “Achieving scope / objective”, “Technical
Specifications”, “Functional requirements”, “Customer / client / owner satisfaction”, “User /
client involvement” and “Quality according to contract” with strong positive loading of .77,
.74, .68, .62, .59 and .54 respectively. Reliability was maintained as indicated by a
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
94
Cronbach’s alpha of .79 for this factor. These six separate indicators were merged as one
factor labeled as “Communication Factor”.
The second component that the factor analysis produced was interpretable and
significant which explained 43.78% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 1.60. The
indicators for this factor were “Effective monitoring / control”, “Realistic schedule”, “Good
performance by suppliers / contractors / consultants”, “Competent project manager” and
“Strong / detailed plan kept up to date” with strong positive loading of .79, .79, .73, .67 and
.48 respectively. Reliability was high as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .82 for this factor.
From these five separate indicators shall be merged as “Planning and Monitoring Factor”.
The third component that the factor analysis produced was interpretable and significant
which explained 50.68% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 2.45. The indicators for this
factor were “Revenue and profits”, “Benefit to stakeholder”, “Reputation”, “Political
stability” and “Good communication” with strong positive loading of .77, .74, .63, .63 and .54
respectively. Reliability was high as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .81 for this factor.
These five separate indicators were merged as “Reputation Factor”.
The fourth component that the factor analysis produced was interpretable and
significant which explained 57.41% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 1.41. The
indicators for this factor were “Cost according to budget” and “Complete within time” with
positive loading of .82 and .73 respectively. Reliability was maintained as indicated by a
Cronbach’s alpha of .65 for this factor. These two separate indicators were merged as
“Parameter Factor”.
The fifth component that the factor analysis produced was interpretable and significant
which explained 62.89% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 1.15. The indicator for this
factor were “Health and safety measures”, “Environmental impact” and “Risk containment”
with positive loading of .76, .69 and .57 respectively. Reliability was maintained as indicated
by a Cronbach’s alpha of .67 for this factor. These three separate indicators were merged as
“Health, Safety and Environment Factor”.
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
95
“Development Success Factors” Factor Extraction Result
The result from the factor analysis on the 21 indicators of development success factors
was successful. The indicators were loaded into five components namely “communication
factor”, “planning and monitoring factor”, “reputation factor”, “parameter factor” and
“health, safety and environment factor”. Table 5.6 summarised the findings of the
development success factors through factor analysis.
Table 5.6: The summary of Development Success Factors component.
Factor Component Indicators Code
DE
VE
LO
PM
EN
T S
UC
CE
SS
FA
CT
OR
S
COMPONENT 1:
COMMUNICATION
FACTOR
Achieving scope / objective scope_1h
Technical specifications spec1_1i
Functional requirements function1_1j
Customer / client / owner
satisfaction
satisfy_1g
User / client involvement involve_1q
Quality according to contract quality1_1c
COMPONENT 2:
PLANNING AND
MONITORING
FACTOR
Effective monitoring / control monitor1_1t
Realistic schedule schedule1_1s
Good performance by suppliers /
contractors / consultants
perform_1u
Competent project manager projmngr_1r
COMPONENT 3:
REPUTATION
FACTOR
Strong / detailed plan kept up to
date
plan_1o
Revenue and profits profit_1l
Benefit to stakeholder benefit_1m
Reputation reputation_1k
Political stability politic_1n
Good communication communicate_1p
COMPONENT 4:
PARAMETER
FACTOR
Cost according to budget budget_1b
Complete within time time_1a
COMPONENT 5:
HEALTH, SAFETY
AND
ENVIRONMENT
FACTOR
Health and safety measures hns1_1e
Environmental impact enviro1_1f
Risk containment risk_1d
The first component was the communication factor. This was because all the indicators
point towards effective communication in order to achieve success in the development.
Communication was required to achieve scope / objective of the development, to determine
functional requirements of the house, to determine the specification required by the client, to
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
96
achieve client satisfaction, to involve the owner in the development and to determine the
quality required in the contract.
The next component was the planning and monitoring factor. There were four
indicators in this category namely effective monitoring or control, good performance by the
suppliers, contractors or consultants, realistic schedule and competent project manager. All
this indicators contributed towards the completion of the development on time.
The next component was the reputation factor. This was because the main indicators in
this component point to things that provided good impression towards all the parties involved
in the development. The indicators include revenue and profits, benefit to stakeholder,
political stability, reputation of parties involved, good communication and strong or detailed
plan kept up to date.
The next component was the parameter factor. Only two indicators were loaded in this
category. They were cost according to budget and complete within time. These two indicators
related to the main parameters of any construction projects namely cost and time.
Unfortunately the third parameter, ‘quality according to contract’ (quality) was loaded into
the ‘communication factor’. It had almost successfully loaded into the parameter factor but its
loading to the communication factor was a bit larger.
The final component was the health, safety and environment factor. There were only
three indicators loaded in this factor. They were health and safety measures, environmental
impact and risk containment. All these indicators contributed towards a safer, healthier and
more environmentally friendly development project.
5.5 Factor 2: Development Barriers
The following were the results of the descriptive and factor analysis on the respondents’
response on development barriers.
5.5.1 Descriptive Analysis
Question 2 consists of 22 development barriers that the respondents had to determine
the severity of its negative effect on their detached housing development. The development
barriers indicators were ranked based on the mean and standard deviation values. The detailed
result of factor analysis on Development Barriers indicators was described in Table 5.7.
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
97
Table 5.7: Development barriers indicators ranked based on their means and standard
deviations.
Rank Indicator Code Mean
Std.
Dev.
1 Building failure bldgfail_2t 1.55 .724
2 Contractor delays contrdelay_2o 1.58 .714
3 Legal liability liability_2v 1.63 .570
4 Site delays sitedelay_2n 1.64 .679
5 Contractor selection selection_2m 1.65 .566
6 Quantity and specification determination quantity1_2l 1.65 .590
7 Warranty warranty_2u 1.66 .758
8 Building regulations regulation_2i 1.69 .609
9 Design failures / changes designfail_2q 1.70 .703
10 Manpower / material shortage shortage_2s 1.71 .708
11 Site condition site1_2d 1.74 .540
12 Grant uncertainty uncertainty_2f 1.75 .625
13 Planning permission permission_2j 1.75 .652
14 Financial projection financial_2c 1.76 .543
15 Design team delay designdelay_2k 1.82 .693
16 Market prediction prediction_2a 1.83 .570
17 Health and safety hns2_2p 1.84 .498
18 Environment enviro2_2r 1.84 .513
19 Conversation consents consent_2h 1.92 .806
20 Consultant's revenue revenue_2e 1.96 .532
21 Interest rate vulnerability interest_2g 2.00 .674
22 Competitor's interest competitor_2b 2.06 .584
Scale: 1 (Very Agreed), 2 (Agreed), 3 (Less Agreed), 4 (Not Agreed)
5.5.2 Factor Analysis
22 indicators were associated to the Development Barriers were analysed using factor
analysis for factor extraction. The components with an eigenvalue of greater than one were
extracted.
All of the 22 indicators were able to make the 0.40 cut-off factor loading. They were
then extracted into five components which accounted for 60.46% of the total variance. For the
indicator with loading present in two or more components, only the higher loading were
considered for factor extraction. The detailed result of factor analysis on Development
Barriers component was described in Table 5.8.
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
98
Table 5.8: The result of factor analysis loadings on Development Barriers component.
Rotated Component Matrixa
Indicator Code Component
1 2 3 4 5
Building failure bldgfail_2t .834
No warranty warranty_2u .817
Site delays sitedelay_2n .789
Contractor delays contrdelay_2o .782
Manpower / material
shortage
shortage_2s .724
Design failures / changes designfail_2q .633
Environment enviro2_2r .541
Consultant's revenue revenue_2e .783
Competitor's interest competitor_2b .770
Financial projection financial_2c .641
Market prediction prediction_2a .605
Site condition site1_2d .561 .439
Health and safety hns2_2p .413
Building regulations regulation_2i .793
Planning permission permission_2j .748
Contractor selection selection_2m .648
Legal liability liability_2v .458 .495
Grant uncertainty uncertainty_2f .709
Interest rate vulnerability interest_2g .665
Conversation consents consent_2h .572
Quantity and specification
determination
quantity1_2l .736
Design team delay designdelay_2k .451 .425 .516
Eigenvalues 6.207 3.283 1.429 1.362 1.020
% of variance 28.213 14.922 6.496 6.189 4.638
Cumulative variance explained 28.213 43.136 49.632 55.821 60.459
Cronbach’s alpha 0.887 0.771 0.662 0.643 0.473
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 7 iterations.
As can be seen in Table 5.8, the first component that the factor analysis produced was
interpretable and significant which explained 28.21% of the variance with an eigenvalue of
6.21. The indicators for this factor were “Building failure”, “Warranty”, “Site delays”,
“Contractor delays”, “Manpower / material shortage”, “Design failures / changes” and
“Environment” with strong positive loading of .83, .82, .79, .78, .72, .63 and .54 respectively.
Reliability was high as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .89 for this factor. These seven
separate indicators were merged as “Design and Site Barrier”.
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
99
The second component that the factor analysis produced was interpretable and
significant which explained 43.14% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 3.28. Indicator
content for this factor were “Consultant's revenue”, “Competitor's interest”, “Financial
projection”, “Market prediction”, “Site condition” and “Health and safety” with strong
positive loading of .78, .77, .64, .61, .56 and .41 respectively. Reliability was maintained as
indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .77 for this factor. These six separate indicators were
merged as “Market and Safety Barrier”.
The third component that the factor analysis produced was interpretable and significant
which explained 49.63% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 1.43. The indicator content for
this factor were “Building regulations”, “Planning permission”, “Contractor selection” and
“Legal liability” with strong positive loading of .79, .75, .65 and .50 respectively. Reliability
was maintained as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .66 for this factor. These four separate
indicators were merged as “Regulation and Procurement Barrier”.
The fourth component that the factor analysis produced was interpretable and
significant which explained 55.82% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 1.36. Item content
for this factor were “Grant uncertainty”, “Interest rate vulnerability” and “Conversation
consents” with strong positive loading of .71, .67 and .57 respectively. Reliability was
maintained as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .64 for this factor. These three separate
indicators were merged as “Financial Barriers”.
The fifth component that the factor analysis produced was interpretable and significant
which explained 60.46% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 1.02. The indicators content
for this factor were “Quantity and specification determination” and “Design team delay” with
strong positive loading of .74 and .52. Reliability was maintained as indicated by a
Cronbach’s alpha of .47 for this factor. These indicators were interpreted as “Planning
Barrier”.
“Development Barriers” Factor Extraction Result
The result from the factor analysis on the 22 indicators of development barriers was
successful. The indicators were loaded into five components namely “design and site barrier”,
“market and safety barrier”, “regulation and procurement barrier”, “financial barrier” and
“planning barrier”. Table 5.9 summarised the findings of the development barriers through
factor analysis.
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
100
Table 5.9: The summary of Development Barriers component.
Factor Component Indicators Code D
EV
EL
OP
ME
NT
BA
RR
IER
S
COMPONENT 1:
DESIGN AND SITE
BARRIER
Building failure bldgfail_2t
No Warranty warranty_2u
Site delays sitedelay_2n
Contractor delays contrdelay_2o
Manpower / material shortage shortage_2s
Design failures / changes designfail_2q
Environment enviro2_2r
COMPONENT 2:
MARKET AND
SAFETY BARRIER
Consultant's revenue revenue_2e
Competitor's interest competitor_2b
Financial projection financial_2c
Market prediction prediction_2a
Site condition site1_2d
Health and safety hns2_2p
COMPONENT 3:
REGULATION AND
PROCUREMENT
BARRIER
Building regulations regulation_2i
Planning permission permission_2j
Contractor selection selection_2m
Legal liability liability_2v
COMPONENT 4:
FINANCIAL
BARRIER
Grant uncertainty uncertainty_2f
Interest rate vulnerability interest_2g
Conversation consents consent_2h
COMPONENT 5:
PLANNING
BARRIER
Quantity and specification
determination
quantity1_2l
Design team delay designdelay_2k
The design and site barrier was always a major concern for small scale projects
especially detached house developments. It related to the performance of the consultants to
provide an acceptable level of house design for the owner and the capability of the contractors
to build the house in accordance to what it was designed. Based on the indicators loaded on
component one, there were two main themes that it had covered namely on design and site
issues. The design problems included building failure and failure of design or design changes.
The site issues were site delays, contractor delays, manpower or material shortage, no
warranty and consideration for the environment.
The next component was the market and safety barrier. Issues of market prediction,
competition, profitability and financial projection were always in the mind of the consultants
and contractors. They had to make sure that every project that they were involved in will
bring back a considerable amount of profit. In terms of safety, the site was the primary
concern of every party. Without proper safety precautions, an accident will cost every party
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
101
not only in terms of time but more importantly in terms of money. The consultant had to take
adequate measures to enforce the safety of everyone on site.
Component three was named “Regulation and Procurement Barrier”. The construction
industry was always tied up to many kinds of rules and regulations. Even the small scaled
detached house development cannot escape from this requirement. Usually the main concerns
for detached house developments were the building regulations and by-laws and planning
permissions that needed to be obtained from the local authority. There were also the issue of
contractor selection where depending from the method used for the selection, it could be a
tedious or simple selection process.
Detached house developments were also tied up to the economic condition where
usually the demand of detached houses raised as the economic condition gets into high gear.
Therefore, the next component was the “Financial Barrier” where it involves in the issue of
obtaining funding for the development and the vulnerability of the owners to the changes of
the interest rates.
Finally there was the “Planning Barrier” where many of the detached houses owners
have overlooked. In this component, the importance of preparing a ‘proper’ design could not
be highlighted enough. Time had to be provided for this process to run its course so that the
owner will be satisfied with the outcome of the development. Ample time should also be
given to the preparation of quantity and specifications so that the owners knew exactly what
they’re getting in their development and how much of it. Failure to do so would leave the
development to manipulations and tremendous amount of changes that will lead to the
increase of development cost.
5.6 Factor 3: Owner Participation
The following were the results of the descriptive and factor analysis on the respondents’
response on owner participation.
5.6.1 Descriptive Analysis
This section contained question 3 which required the owner to determine the degree of
their involvement in the development of their detached house according to the 29 listed
indicators. The owner participation indicators were ranked based on the mean and standard
deviation values. The detailed result of factor analysis on Owner Participation indicators was
described in Table 5.10.
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
102
Table 5.10: Owner participation indicators ranked based on their means and standard
deviations.
Rank Indicator Code Mean
Std.
Dev.
1 Securing financing commitments finance_3f 1.31 .718
2 Acquiring project site site2_3g 1.35 .784
3 Planning the internal and external design intextdesign_3i 1.62 .783
4 Negotiation with contractor negotiate_3q 1.72 1.000
5 Selection of contractor selection_3p 1.74 .974
6 Estimating the project’s cost cost_3e 1.74 .914
7 Assembling development team devteam_3a 1.75 1.061
8 Formulising the project’s objective objective_3b 1.77 .926
9 Handing over site to the owner handover2_3ac 1.78 .977
10 Monitoring the progress of works monitor2_3t 1.83 .880
11 Handing over possession of site to the
contractor
handover1_3r 1.83 1.029
12 Overseeing progress payment payment_3v 1.84 1.003
13 Planning the structural design of building strdesign_3h 1.87 1.001
14 Determining the project’s specifications spec2_3k 1.93 .926
15 Overseeing making good of defects during
Defects Liability Period
dlp_3aa 2.03 1.020
16 Design compliance with legal requirements legalreq_3j 2.09 1.054
17 Obtaining project approval from authorities approval_3l 2.14 1.088
18 Issuing variation of works variation_3w 2.18 1.054
19 Attending site meetings sitemeet_3s 2.25 1.007
20 Developing the project’s schedule schedule2_3d 2.40 1.033
21 Overseeing final account and final certificate
preparation
cf_3ab 2.42 1.098
22 Preparation of project quantities and
specifications
quantity2_3m 2.42 1.022
23 Monitoring liquidated and ascertain damages
claims
lad_3z 2.47 1.147
24 Monitoring extension of time claims eot_3y 2.61 1.122
25 Setting up the project’s organisational
structure
structure_3c 2.63 1.030
26 Management of tender bidding process bidding_3o 2.72 1.068
27 Monitoring health and safety procedures hns3_3u 2.72 1.049
28 Preparation of tender / contract document document_3n 2.76 1.091
29 Practical completion completion_3x 2.99 1.081
Scale: 1 (Involved), 2 (Quite Involved), 3 (Less Involved), 4 (Not Involved)
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
103
5.6.2 Factor Analysis
29 indicators were associated to the Owner Participation were analysed using factor
analysis for factor extraction. The components with an eigenvalue of greater than one were
extracted.
All of the 29 indicators were able to make the 0.40 cut-off factor loading. They were
then extracted into five components which accounted for 65.84% of the total variance. For the
indicator with loading present in two or more components, only the higher loading were
considered for factor extraction. The detailed result of factor analysis on Owner Participation
component was described in Table 5.11.
Table 5.11: The result of factor analysis loadings on Owner Participation component.
Rotated Component Matrixa
Indicator Code Component
1 2 3 4 5
Preparation of tender /
contract document
document_3n .784
Preparation of project
quantities and specifications
quantity2_3m .705 .419
Management of tender
bidding process
bidding_3o .673
Setting up the project's
organisational structure
structure_3c .622
Monitoring health and safety
procedures
hns3_3u .575 .451
Developing the project's
schedule
schedule2_3d .574 .401
Obtaining project approval
from local authorities
approval_3l .567
Monitoring liquidated and
ascertain damages claim
lad_3z .819
Monitoring extension of time
claims
eot_3y .794
Overseeing making good of
defects during Defects
Liability Period
dlp_3aa .693
Overseeing final account and
final certificate preparation
cf_3ab .665
Practical completion completion_3x .482 .622
Overseeing progress payment payment_3v .552
Issuing variation of works variation_3w .522
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
104
Table 5.11: The result of factor analysis loadings on Owner Participation component
(continued).
Indicator Code Component
1 2 3 4 5
Handing over site to the
owner
handover2_3ac .458
Attending site meetings sitemeet_3s .444
Negotiation with contractor negotiate_3q .809
Handing over possession of
site to the contractor
handover1_3r .782
Contractor selection selection_3p .780
Monitoring the progress of
works
monitor2_3t .532 .439
Estimating the project's cost cost_3e .729
Planning the internal and
external design
intextdesign_3i .419 .722
Planning the structural design
of building
strdesign_3h .675
Determining the project's
specifications
spec2_3k .465 .627
Design compliance with
regulation
legalreq_3j .490 .568
Assembling development
team
devteam_3a .718
Securing financing
commitments
finance_3f .676
Acquiring project site site2_3g .403 .651
Formulising the project's
objective
objective_3b .406 .592
Eigenvalues 12.044 2.556 1.816 1.471 1.207
% of variance 41.531 8.815 6.261 5.073 4.162
Cumulative variance explained 41.531 50.346 56.607 61.680 65.842
Cronbach’s alpha 0.891 0.880 0.905 0.867 0.768
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 11 iterations.
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
105
As can be seen in Table 5.11, the first component that the factor analysis produced was
interpretable and significant which explained 41.53% of the variance with an eigenvalue of
12.04. Indicator content for this factor were “Preparation of tender / contract document”,
“Preparation of project quantities and specifications”, “Management of tender bidding
process”, “Setting up the project’s organisational structure”, “Monitoring health and safety
procedures”, “Developing the project’s schedule” and “Obtaining project approval from
authorities” with strong positive loading of .78, .71, .67, .62, .58, .57 and .57 respectively.
Reliability was high as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .89 for this factor. These seven
separate indicators were merged as “Project Procurement”.
The second component that the factor analysis produced was interpretable and
significant which explained 50.35% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 2.56. The
indicators for this factor were “Monitoring liquidated and ascertain damages claim”,
“Monitoring extension of time claims”, “Overseeing making good of defects during Defects
Liability Period”, “Overseeing final account and final certificate preparation”, “Practical
completion”, “Overseeing progress payment”, “Issuing variation of works”, “Handing over
site to the owner” and “Attending site meetings” with strong positive loading of .82, .79, .69,
.67, .62, .55, .52, .46 and .44 respectively. Reliability was high as indicated by a Cronbach’s
alpha of .88 for this factor. These nine separate indicators were merged as “Project
Completion”.
The third component that the factor analysis produced was interpretable and significant
which explained 55.61% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 1.82. The indicator content for
this factor were “Negotiation with contractor”, “Handing over possession of site to the
contractor”, “Selection of contractor”, and “Monitoring the progress of works” with strong
positive loading of .81, .78, .53 and .42 respectively. Reliability was high as indicated by a
Cronbach’s alpha of .91 for this factor. These four separate indicators were merged as
“Project Contracting”.
The fourth component that the factor analysis produced was interpretable and
significant which explained 61.68% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 1.47. Item content
for this factor were “Estimating the project’s cost”, “Planning the internal and external
design”, “Planning the structural design of building”, “Determining the project’s
specifications” and “Design compliance with legal requirements” with strong positive loading
of .73, .72, .68, .63 and .57 respectively. Reliability was high as indicated by a Cronbach’s
alpha of .87 for this factor. These five separate indicators were merged as “Project Planning”.
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
106
The fifth component that the factor analysis produced was interpretable and significant
which explained 65.84% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 1.21. Item content for this
factor were “Assembling development team”, “Securing financing commitments”,
“Acquiring project site” and “Formulising the project’s objective” with strong positive
loading of .72, .68, .65 and .59 respectively. Reliability was maintained as indicated by a
Cronbach’s alpha of .77 for this factor. These four separate indicators were merged as
“Project Initiation”.
“Development Success Factors” Factor Extraction Result
The result from the factor analysis on the 29 indicators of development barriers was
successful. The indicators were loaded into five components namely “project procurement”,
“project completion”, “project contracting”, “project planning” and “project initiation”. Table
5.12 summarised that findings of owner participation through factor analysis.
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
107
Table 5.12: The summary of Owner Participation component.
Factor Component Indicators Code O
WN
ER
PA
RT
ICIP
AT
ION
COMPONENT 1:
PROJECT
PROCUREMENT
Preparation of tender / contract
document document_3n
Preparation of project quantities and
specifications quantity2_3m
Management of tender bidding
process bidding_3o
Setting up the project’s organisational
structure structure_3c
Monitoring health and safety
procedures hns3_3u
Developing the project’s schedule schedule2_3d
Obtaining project approval from local
authorities approval_3l
COMPONENT 2:
PROJECT
COMPLETION
Monitoring liquidated and ascertain
damages claim lad_3z
Monitoring extension of time claims eot_3y
Overseeing making good of defects
during Defects Liability Period dlp_3aa
Overseeing final account and final
certificate preparation cf_3ab
Practical completion completion_3x
Overseeing progress payment payment_3v
Issuing variation of works variation_3w
Handing over site to the owner handover2_3ac
Attending site meetings sitemeet_3s
COMPONENT 3:
PROJECT
CONTRACTING
Negotiation with contractor negotiate_3q
Handing over possession of site to the
contractor handover1_3r
Contractor selection selection_3p
Monitoring the progress of works monitor2_3t
COMPONENT 4:
PROJECT
PLANNING
Estimating the project’s cost cost_3e
Planning the internal and external
design intextdesign_3i
Planning the structural design of
building strdesign_3h
Determining the project’s
specifications spec2_3k
Design compliance with legal
requirement legalreq_3j
COMPONENT 5:
PROJECT
INITIATION
Assembling development team devteam_3a
Securing financing commitments finance_3f
Acquiring project site site2_3g
Formulising the project’s objective objective_3b
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
108
The first component was the “Project Procurement”. An owner may or may not be
involved in these activities depending on the scale of the development itself. This component
included issues such as tender or contract documents, quantities and specifications, bidding
process, project schedule and such. This stage was quite important so that the development
could be properly controlled and monitored as it progresses.
The next component was the “Project Completion”. Some of the issues in this
component included the issue of liquidated and ascertain damages, extension of time, defects
liability period, final account, practical completion, progress payment, variation order and site
meetings. The activities mentioned were crucial in order for the development to be completed
in a proper manner. Some of these activities may even require the direct involvement of the
owners themselves.
“Project Contracting” was the next component in “Development Barriers”. It involves
contractor selection, negotiating with the contractor, handing over site to the contractor and
monitoring progress of works. Keen owners may involve themselves in this process as they
wanted to get the best contractor for their development with the advice from the consultants.
The final component was the “Project Initiation”. This includes assembling the
development team, securing financial commitments, acquire project site and formulising
project objective. This was one of the most important stages of a development where
maximum owner participation was required.
The detailed result from the factor analysis to the 29 indicators of Owner Participation
was summarised as follows:
5.7 Factor 4: Owner Satisfaction
The following were the results of the descriptive and factor analysis on the respondents’
response on owner satisfaction.
5.7.1 Descriptive Analysis
This section contained question 15 which required the owner to determine their
satisfaction level on their completed detached house according to the 17 listed indicators. The
owner satisfaction indicators were ranked based on the mean and standard deviation values.
The detailed result of factor analysis on Owner Satisfaction indicators was described in Table
5.13.
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
109
Table 5.13: Owner satisfaction indicators ranked based on their means and standard
deviations.
Rank Indicator Code Mean
Std.
Dev.
1 The size of the master bedroom masterbed_15e 1.67 .469
2 The numbers of bedroom bed_15d 1.75 .435
3 The size of the master bedroom's bathroom masterbath_15f 1.75 .465
4 The size of the living room livingfamily2_15g 1.75 .442
5 The build area of the house buildarea_15c 1.77 .445
6 The area of the house compound compound_15m 1.79 .464
7 The overall design of the house design_15a 1.80 .424
8 The capability of the house to perform its
functions
function2_15q 1.80 .398
9 The size of the kitchen kitchen_15h 1.80 .442
10 The internal space of the house internal_15b 1.81 .428
11 Air ventilation ventilation_15l 1.82 .410
12 Water supply water_15j 1.83 .391
13 Electrical supply electric_15k 1.83 .403
14 The condition of access road and drains accessdrains_15n 1.85 .379
15 The quality of the construction materials
used
quality2_15i 1.85 .425
16 The delivery of the project (time) delivery_15o 1.89 .500
17 The overall quality of the house compared
to its specifications
quality3_15p 1.90 .377
Scale: 1 (Very Satisfied), 2 (Satisfied), 3 (Less Satisfied), 4 (Not Satisfied)
5.7.2 Factor Analysis
17 indicators were associated to the Owner Satisfaction were analysed using factor
analysis for factor extraction. The components with an eigenvalue of greater than one were
extracted.
All of the 17 indicators were able to make the 0.40 cut-off factor loading. They were
then extracted into 3 components which accounted for 66.93% of the total variance. For the
indicator with loading present in two or more components, only the higher loading were
considered for factor extraction. The detailed result of factor analysis on Owner Satisfaction
component was described in Table 5.14.
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
110
Table 5.14: The result of factor analysis loadings on Owner Satisfaction component.
Rotated Component Matrixa
Indicator Code Component
1 2 3
The size of the master bedroom masterbed_15e .841
The numbers of bedroom bed_15d .814
The size of the living room livingfamily2_15g .793
The size of the master bedroom's
bathroom
masterbath_15f .784
The build area of the house buildarea_15c .737
The size of the kitchen kitchen_15h .704
The overall design of the house design_15a .541
The area of the house compound compound_15m .402
The overall quality of the house
compared to its specifications
quality3_15p .845
The delivery of the project (time) delivery_15o .780
The internal space of the house internal_15b .577 .600
The capability of the house to
perform its functions
function2_15q .590 .411
The quality of the construction
materials used
quality2_15i .560
Electrical supply electric_15k .884
Water supply water_15j .853
Air ventilation ventilation_15l .414 .609
The condition of access road and
drains
accessdrains_15n .590
Eigenvalues 8.777 1.522 1.079
% of variance 51.630 8.955 6.345
Cumulative variance explained 51.630 60.585 66.929
Cronbach’s alpha 0.913 0.839 0.866
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
As can be seen in Table 5.14, the first component that the factor analysis produced was
interpretable and significant which explained 51.63% of the variance with an eigenvalue of
8.78. The indicators for this factor were “The size of the master bedroom”, “The numbers of
bedroom”, “The size of the living room”, “The size of the master bedroom's bathroom”, “The
build area of the house”, “The size of the kitchen”, “The overall design of the house” and
“The area of the house compound”with strong positive loading of .81, .81, .79, .78, .74, .70,
.54 and .40 respectively. Reliability was high as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .91 for
this factor. These 6 separate indicators were merged as “Spatial Design”.
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
111
The second component that the factor analysis produced was interpretable and
significant which explained 60.59% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 1.52. Indicator
content for this factor were “The overall quality of the house compared to its specifications”,
“The delivery of the project (time)”, “The internal space of the house”, “The capability of the
house to perform its functions” and “The quality of the construction materials used”, with
strong positive loading of .85, .78, .60, .59 and .56 respectively. Reliability was high as
indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .84 for this factor. These 5 separate indicators were
merged as “Project Implementation”.
The third component that the factor analysis produced was interpretable and significant
which explained 66.93% of the variance with an eigenvalue of 1.08. The indicator content for
this factor were “Electrical supply”, “Water supply”, “Air ventilation” and “The condition of
access road and drains” with strong positive loading of .88, .85, .61 and .59 respectively.
Reliability was strong as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .87 for this factor. These 4
separate indicators were merged as “Building Services”.
“Development Success Factors” Factor Extraction Result
The result from the factor analysis on the 17 indicators of owner satisfaction was
successful. The indicators were loaded into three components namely “spatial design”,
“project implementation” and “building services”. Table 5.15 summarised the findings of
owner satisfaction through factor analysis.
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
112
Table 5.15: The summary of Owner Satisfaction component.
Factor Components Indicators Code O
WN
ER
SA
TIS
FA
CT
ION
COMPONENT 1:
SPATIAL DESIGN
The size of the master bedroom masterbed_15e
The numbers of bedroom bed_15d
The size of the living room livingfamily2_15
g
The size of the master bedroom's
bathroom
masterbath_15f
The build area of the house buildarea_15c
The size of the kitchen kitchen_15h
The overall design of the house design_15a
The area of the house compound compound_15m
COMPONENT 2:
PROJECT
IMPLEMENTA-
TION
The overall quality of the house
compared to its specifications
quality3_15p
The delivery of the project (time) delivery_15o
The internal space of the house internal_15b
The capability of the house to perform
its functions
function2_15q
The quality of the construction
materials used
quality2_15i
COMPONENT 3:
BUILDING
SERVICES
Electrical supply electric_15k
Water supply water_15j
Air ventilation ventilation_15l
The condition of access road and
drains
accessdrains_15n
The first component that had contributed towards owner satisfaction was the spatial
design of the detached house. This included areas such as the master bedroom, other
bedrooms, living room, kitchen, the house’s compound and the overall design of the house.
The consultant played the leading role as he/she grabs the idea of the client and transformed it
onto paper. The stature of the owner was represented by the excellent design of the house as
well as brought tremendous satisfaction to the owner.
The second component that provided owners with satisfaction was the project
implementation. Not only the design of the house on paper must be good but the
implementation of making it to a physical reality must also be properly orchestrated. This
included issues such as the duration of the build, quality of materials, the house’s
functionality, internal space and the overall quality of the development. In this stage, the
contractor played a key role in building a quality product for their client.
The final component of owner satisfaction was in terms of building services. A house
without proper services was practically useless. Therefore, important aspects of building
Chapter 5: Model Component Analysis
113
services such as electricity, water, air ventilation, roads and drains must be considered by the
consultants in order to make the building as comfortable to the owner as possible.
5.8 SUMMARY
This chapter has explained on the process of data analysis for this research using
descriptive and factor analysis. The first factor was the “Development Success Factors”
which were identified with 21 indicators. These indicators were ranked through descriptive
analysis and loaded into five components through the implementation of factor analysis.
These components were identified as “Communication Factor”, “Planning and Monitoring
Factor”, “Reputation Factor”, “Parameter Factor” and “Health, Safety and Environment
Factor”.
The second factor was the “Development Barriers” which were identified with 22
indicators. These indicators were ranked through descriptive analysis and loaded into five
components through the implementation of factor analysis. These components were identified
as “Design and Site Barrier”, “Market and Safety Barrier”, “Regulation and Procurement
Barrier”, “Financial Barrier” and “Planning Barrier”.
The third factor was the “Owner Participation” which was identified with 29 indicators.
These indicators were ranked through descriptive analysis and loaded into five components
through the implementation of factor analysis. These components were identified as “Project
Procurement”, “Project Completion”, “Project Contracting”, “Project Planning” and “Project
Initiation”.
The fourth factor was the “Owner Satisfaction” which was identified with 17 indicators.
These indicators were ranked through descriptive analysis and loaded into three components
through the implementation of factor analysis. These components were identified as “Spatial
Design”, “Project Implementation” and “Building Services”.
The results that were produced by the factor analysis in this chapter were further
analysed using structural equation modelling which will be further discussed in the next
chapter.
Chapter 6: Owner Participation Analysis
114
CHAPTER 6: OWNER PARTICIPATION
ANALYSIS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The previous chapter had highlighted the descriptive and factor analysis. This was more
of a preparatory analysis in order to organise the data to be merged into a model. This chapter
will explain the process that was taken in order to arrive to a working model for this research.
This model shall be the basis for the development of a guideline for future detached housing
owners on how to effectively assist in the development process of their home.
This chapter consists of six sections. The second section described about the structural
equation modelling (SEM) and the justifications it was implemented in this research. It was
followed with the third section which describes the validity of the estimated measurement
model through the usage of measurement model. The thesis continues with the fourth section
which explains the structural equation modelling analysis on each individual factor as well as
the result of the merged structural model in section five. This chapter ended with the final
section which is a summary of the results that was derived out of the SEM analysis.
6.2 DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELLING (SEM)
ANALYSIS
Structural equation modelling (SEM) is a family of statistical models that seek to
explain the relationship among multiple variables by examining the structure of
interrelationships expressed in a series of equations (Hair et al., 2006, p. 711). SEM has
highly desirable characteristics such as it is a confirmatory rather than an exploratory
approach to the data analysis, it provides explicit estimates of measurement error parameters
and its procedures incorporate both unobserved and observed variables (Byrne, 2010, p. 4).
There were four main reasons why SEM was becoming popular and chosen for this
research. The need to use multiple observed variables to better understand the area of
scientific enquiry, greater recognition given to the validity and the reliability of observed
scores from measurement instruments, the maturity of SEM especially its ability to analyse
more advanced theoretical SEM models and SEM software programs have become
increasingly user friendly (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004, p. 5).
Chapter 6: Owner Participation Analysis
115
Due to its confirmatory nature, the application of SEM enabled the results of the EFA to
be confirmed in more meaningful visual relationships that assisted in the conceptualisation
the proposed theory. With a relatively large sample of 219 respondents, the respondents of
this research had sufficed for the implementation of SEM for this research. This is because a
according to Barrett (2007, p. 820), SEM analyses based upon samples of less than 200
should simply be rejected outright for publication unless the population from which a sample
is hypothesised to be drawn is itself small or restricted in size.
The model analysis in SEM requires it to fulfil the requirements of goodness-of-fit
(GOF). In making the model to be fit, there had to be some indicators that had to be removed.
However, there is a limitation for how many indicators that can be removed for each
construct or component. Iacobucci (2010a, p. 95) recommends that the most ideal construct
would be measured by at least three indicator variables. Ainsworth (2006, Slide 15) confirms
this by indicating that in order for a single factor to be estimated using SEM it must have at
least three indicators with non-zero loadings. It also most have no correlated errors and its
factor variance or one of the factor loadings must be fixed to one. Therefore for each factor,
there must be at least three indicators attached to it.
Barrett (2007, p. 823) had pointed up that the acceptance of a particular value of
“approximate fit” is not a matter for abstract “thresholds” but ideally the empirical calculation
of the actual consequences of using that value as indicative of “useful or approximate fit”.
However, Iacobucci (2010a, p. 95) and Markland (2007, p. 854) quoted Marsh, Hau & Wen
(2004) who cautioned researchers on being too rigid about GOF indices of the model. The
model should not be overly critically compared to the GOF but should also logically and
comprehensively support its theoretical story (Iacobucci, 2010a, p. 95). Markland (2007, p.
858) supports this notion by indicating that the assessment of model adequacy should be a
multifaceted enterprise comprising consideration of model fit, empirical adequacy and
substantive meaningfulness.
6.3 VALIDITY OF THE ESTIMATED MEASUREMENT MODEL
The path diagram in Figure 6.1 describes the relationship between the components in
the proposed measurement model. Component “Parameter Factor” of the Development
Success Factors (Table 5.6) and “Planning Barrier” (Table 5.9) of the Development Barrier
had to be removed prior to this analysis because the components had less than three indicators
attached to them.
Chapter 6: Owner Participation Analysis
116
Figure 6.1: A path diagram showing correlational relationship between constructs (CFA
/ Measurement Model).
Qu
estion
2: D
evelop
men
t
Barriers
Qu
estion
3: O
wn
er
Particip
ation
Qu
estion
15
: Ow
ner
Satisfaction
Qu
estion
1:
Develo
pm
ent
Succe
ss
Factors
Chapter 6: Owner Participation Analysis
117
Figure 6.1 is a full measurement model, where there were no structural relationships
among the constructs. All constructs were considered exogenous and correlated. This is also
known as a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model (Hair et al., 2006, p. 754). Generally,
almost all of the components had low correlation with each other except for the components
that were in the same factor. This model shows good discriminant validity where the
components that were in different main factor have a low correlations compared to the
components in the same main factor which had high correlations.
One of the important estimates in the measurement model is the loading estimates.
Loading estimate is the estimate for each arrow linking a construct (or component, indicated
by an oval shape) to a measured variable (or indicator, indicated by a rectangular shape). This
is an estimate of a variable's loading which is the degree to which that item is related to the
construct. The loading value is between zero and one with a loading nearing zero indicating
that there is less relation between the construct and the variable and a loading which is
nearing the value of one indicating otherwise. It can be observed from Figure 6.1 that
majority of the loading estimates are high indicating good loadings on each indicators by the
factor analysis exercise from Chapter 5.
The other important estimate is the one-between construct correlation estimate or
correlation estimate for short. The correlation estimate is the estimate for each double-headed
arrow linking a construct (or component, indicated by an oval shape) to another construct.
This is an estimate of a construct’s loading which is the degree to which that a construct is
related to another construct. The loading value is between zero and one with a loading
nearing zero indicating that there is less relation between the constructs and a loading which
is nearing the value of one indicating otherwise. To aid observation for Figure 6.1, low
correlation estimate loadings that is below the value of 0.5 is coloured red while high
correlation estimate loadings that have the value of 0.5 and above is coloured green.
It can be observed that majority of the correlation estimate loadings of the constructs
within the same question are high indicating that the constructs that were grouped in the
particular question have strong relationship with each other. In the other hand, there are no
indications of high correlation estimate loadings of constructs between different questions at
all. This shows that the variables (or indicators) that were grouped in each set of questions
were highly correlated to each other and not to variables from other questions. This result
could only be achieved through meticulous review of literature and identification of research
variables in the literature review chapters of 2 and 3.
Chapter 6: Owner Participation Analysis
118
6.4 COMPONENT OF ESTIMATED STRUCTURAL MODEL
The four components that were analysed using factor analysis include:
Development Success Factors;
Development Barriers;
Owner Participation;
Owner Satisfaction.
The results of the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) from the previous chapter were
reanalysed using SEM. SEM was used to confirm the measurements as well as accessing the
relationship of its indicators. There were two steps in the SEM analysis. In the first step, the
main factors (with its components and indicators) were separately analysed using SEM.
Irrelevant indicators were removed to make the factor to fit. This step was important because
had not only it had reduced the number of indicators but also had assisted in the process of
making the proposed model to fit a bit more uncomplicated. In the second step, the main
factors (with its components and indicators) were merged as a proposed model based on the
research’s theoretical framework and objectives. This model was analysed again using SEM
and made to fit. The proposed model was correlated to the findings of the qualitative analysis
and updated accordingly based on the response of the interview participant (more information
in Chapter 7).
6.4.1 Development Success Factors
The unmeasured factor of “Development Success Factors” was estimated by five
observed components obtained from the previous exploratory factor analysis. From the result
of factor analysis, the fourth component (parameter factor) only had two indicators loaded
into it. Therefore, it cannot be included into the development success factors model to be
analysed using SEM and was removed during the development of the measurement model.
The factor and indicators were then placed in the AMOS program and to be tested for
goodness of fit.
The measurement indicated that the model (Figure 6.2) was not quite fit because the
limitations of the main indicators were exceeded. Therefore, this model needs to be modified
in order to make it fit. By going to the “Modification Indices” (MI) in the AMOS output, the
researcher could identify the indicators that had excessively large MI values and remove
them.
Chapter 6: Owner Participation Analysis
119
Figure 6.2: The structural model of development success factors produced by factor
analysis (model unfit).
Chapter 6: Owner Participation Analysis
120
The result of removing the excessive values of the MI was repeated until the model was
able to reach the limit of a model fit or GOF (Figure 6.3).
Figure 6.3: The structural model of development success factors (model fit).
Evidence of a good fit was indicated by CMIN/DF = 1.769, GFI = 0.903, TLI = 0.923,
CFI = 0.934, RMSEA = 0.059, AGFI = 0.874 and the Probability (p value) = 0.000 which is
better than its original model (Table 6.1). In addition, the high loading between the four
components and the main factor indicates a good convergence validity of this model.
Therefore, the proposed measurement model for “Development Success Factors” could be
used for further analysis.
Chapter 6: Owner Participation Analysis
121
Table 6.1: The comparison of the structural model (unfit) and structural model (fit) of
development success factors.
DEVELOPMENT SUCCESS FACTORS
Goodness of Fit
Indices
Structural Model
(Unfit)
Structural Model
(Fit)
Desired Levels
CMIN/DF 2.186 1.769 < 2.00
GFI 0.879 0.903 > 0.9
TLI 0.880 0.923 > 0.9
CFI 0.896 0.934 > 0.9
RMSEA 0.074 0.059 <0.06
AGFI 0.845 0.874 > 0.9
6.4.2 Development Barriers
The unmeasured factor of “Development Barriers” was estimated by five observed
components obtained from the previous exploratory factor analysis. The components and
indicators were then placed in the AMOS program and to be tested for goodness of fit.
From the factor analysis result, one of the components (planning barrier) had only two
indicators associated to it. In order to run the SEM, each variable must at least have three
indicators to it. Therefore, the “Planning Barrier” was removed during the development of the
measurement model.
The measurement indicated that the model (Figure 6.4) was not quite fit because the
limitations of the main indicators were exceeded. Therefore, this model needs to be modified
in order to make it fit. By going to the “Modification Indices” in the AMOS output, the
researcher could identify the indicators that had excessively large MI values and remove
them.
Chapter 6: Owner Participation Analysis
122
Figure 6.4: The structural model of development barriers produced by factor analysis
(model unfit).
Chapter 6: Owner Participation Analysis
123
The result of removing the excessive values of the MI was repeated until the model was
able to reach the limit of a model fit or GOF (Figure 6.5).
Figure 6.5: The structural model of development barriers (model fit).
Evidence of a good fit was indicated by CMIN/DF = 1.888, GFI = 0.911, TLI = 0.902,
CFI = 0.919, RMSEA = 0.064, AGFI = 0.876 and the Probability (p value) = 0.000 which is
better than its original model (Table 6.2). In addition, the high loading between the four
components and the main factor indicates a good convergence validity of this model.
Therefore, the proposed measurement model for “Development Barriers” could be used for
further analysis.
Chapter 6: Owner Participation Analysis
124
Table 6.2: The comparison of the structural model (unfit) and structural model (fit) of
development barriers.
DEVELOPMENT BARRIERS
Goodness of Fit
Indices
Structural Model
(Unfit)
Structural Model
(Fit)
Desired Levels
CMIN/DF 2.879 1.772 < 2.00
GFI 0.818 0.923 > 0.9
TLI 0.797 0.902 > 0.9
CFI 0.823 0.921 > 0.9
RMSEA 0.093 0.059 <0.06
AGFI 0.770 0.889 > 0.9
6.4.3 Owner Participation
The unmeasured factor of “Owner Participation” was estimated by five observed
components obtained from the previous exploratory factor analysis. The components and
indicators were then placed in the AMOS program and to be tested for goodness of fit.
It could be identified that all of the components could be analysed in SEM. From the
factor analysis, all of the components had 3 or more indicators to them.
The measurement indicated that the model (Figure 6.6) was not quite fit because the
limitations of the main indicators were exceeded. Therefore, this model needs to be modified
in order to make it fit. By going to the “Modification Indices” in the AMOS output, the
researcher could identify the indicators that had excessively large MI values and remove
them.
Chapter 6: Owner Participation Analysis
125
Figure 6.6: The structural model of owner participation produced by factor analysis
(model unfit).
Chapter 6: Owner Participation Analysis
126
The result of removing the excessive values of the MI was repeated until the model was
able to reach the limit of a model fit or GOF (Figure 6.7).
Figure 6.7: The structural model of owner participation (model fit).
Evidence of a good fit was indicated by CMIN/DF = 1.923, GFI = 0.947, TLI = 0.962,
CFI = 0.973, RMSEA = 0.065, AGFI = 0.908 and the Probability (p value) = 0.000 which is
better than its original model (Table 6.3). In addition, the high loading between the three
components and the main factor indicates a good convergence validity of this model.
Therefore, the proposed measurement model for “Owner Participation” could be used for
further analysis.
Table 6.3: The comparison of the structural model (unfit) and structural model (fit) of
owner participation.
OWNER PARTICIPATION
Goodness of Fit
Indices
Structural Model
(Unfit)
Structural Model
(Fit)
Desired Levels
CMIN/DF 3.053 1.923 < 2.00
GFI 0.736 0.947 > 0.9
TLI 0.791 0.962 > 0.9
CFI 0.809 0.973 > 0.9
RMSEA 0.097 0.065 <0.06
AGFI 0.692 0.908 > 0.9
Chapter 6: Owner Participation Analysis
127
6.4.4 Owner Satisfaction
The unmeasured factor of “Owner Satisfaction” was estimated by three observed
components obtained from the previous exploratory factor analysis. The components and
indicators were then placed in the AMOS program and to be tested for goodness of fit.
It could be identified that all of the components could be analysed in SEM. From the
factor analysis, all of the components had 3 or more indicators to them.
This measurement indicated that this model (Figure 6.8) was not quite fit because the
limitations of the main indicators were exceeded. Therefore, this model needs to be modified
in order to make it fit. By going to the “Modification Indices” in the AMOS output, the
researcher could identify the indicators that had excessively large MI values and remove
them.
Figure 6.8: The structural model of owner satisfaction produced by factor analysis
(model unfit).
Chapter 6: Owner Participation Analysis
128
The result of removing the excessive values of the MI was repeated until the model was
able to reach the limit of a model fit or GOF (Figure 6.9).
Figure 6.9: The structural model of owner satisfaction (model fit).
Evidence of a good fit was indicated by CMIN/DF = 2.450, GFI = 0.907, TLI = 0.936,
CFI = 0.950, RMSEA = 0.082, AGFI = 0.861 and the Probability (p value) = 0.000 which is
better than its original model (Table 6.4). In addition, the high loading between the three
components and the main factor indicates a good convergence validity of this model.
Therefore, the proposed measurement model for “Owner Participation” could be used for
further analysis.
Chapter 6: Owner Participation Analysis
129
Table 6.4: The comparison of the structural model (unfit) and structural model (fit) of
owner satisfaction.
OWNER SATISFACTION
Goodness of Fit
Indices
Structural Model
(Unfit)
Structural Model
(Fit)
Desired Levels
CMIN/DF 3.730 2.450 < 2.00
GFI 0.818 0.907 > 0.9
TLI 0.855 0.936 > 0.9
CFI 0.877 0.950 > 0.9
RMSEA 0.112 0.082 <0.06
AGFI 0.760 0.861 > 0.9
6.5 MERGED STRUCTURAL MODEL
All of the previous four main factors (development success factors, development
barriers, owner participation and owner satisfaction) that were fitted in Section 6.4 were
merged based on the research framework discussed in Chapter 4. The result was a merged
structural model which was not entirely fit according to Figure 6.10. This merged structural
model needed to put through another goodness-of-fit (GOF) process.
Chapter 6: Owner Participation Analysis
130
Figure 6.10: The merged structural model (model unfit).
Chapter 6: Owner Participation Analysis
131
The merged structural model (fit) (Figure 6.11) provides an overview of the relation
between the components in this research. In terms of fitness, this model had improved on the
merged structural model (unfit) and fulfilled the characteristics of a model that fits (Table
6.5).
In terms of the absolute measures it was used to singularly indicate goodness of fit as it
was affected by sample size and number of observed variables. According to Hair et al.(2006,
p. 749) as both of the sample size and observed variables increases, the value of x2
(chi-
square) would inflate. As models gets more complicated, it was more difficult to use chi-
square to access model fit. For this reason, the resulting p-value was less meaningful and chi-
square test was not used to singularly to measure goodness of fit.
In addition, the result was that of typical models today were more complex and has
sample sizes that make the x2 significance test less useful as a GOF measure that always
separates good from poor models. This was concurred by Byrne (2010, p. 76) who reported
that it should be noted that a known limitation of this test is that the x2 is quite sensitive to
sample size and assumes perfect model fit, frequently resulting in rejected models. However,
no matter what the x2 result, the researcher should always complement it with other GOF
indices, but, just as important, the x2 value itself and the model degrees of freedom should
always be reported (Hair et al., 2006, p. 751).
Hair et al. (2006, p. 758) also recommended that multiple fit indices should be used to
assess a model’s goodness-of-fit. These indices were from two different classes of goodness-
of-fit measure namely the incremental measures and parsimony fit measures. This multiple fit
indices should include the x2 value and the associated df, one absolute fit index (GFI, RMSEA
or SRMR), one incremental fit index (CFI or TLI), one goodness-of-fit index (GFI, CFI, TLI,
etc.) and one badness-of-fit index (RMSEA, SRMR, etc.).
Therefore based on the said requirements, this measurement model had achieved the
goodness-of-fit indicators. The x2 value and the associated df had a value of 1.395 where the
required value was below 2.000. For the absolute fit index, RMSEA was used with a value of
0.043 where the required value was below 0.06. CFI was used for incremental fit index where
it had a value of 0.923. The required value for this incremental fit index was below 0.900.
TLI was utilised for goodness-of-fit index where it had a value of 0.917. The required value
was below 0.900. Finally, RMSEA was used for badness-of-fit index and it had a value of
0.043. The required value was below 0.06.
Chapter 6: Owner Participation Analysis
132
The unfit merged structural model (Figure 6.10) was fitted as much as possible to
produce a fit merged structural model (Figure 6.11). Even though the GFI and AGFI had not
reached its targeted value that should exceeded 0.9, it was concluded that this merged
structural model (fit) had reached its point for fitness. Hair et al. (2006, p. 747) explained that
the GFI was an early attempt to produce a fit statistic that was less sensitive to sample size
but it was still sensitive to sample size due to the effect of N on sampling distributions. The
same goes to the AGFI as it was also affected by sample size and model complexity. Recent
development of other fit indices had led to their decline of usage.
Hair (2006, p. 758) highlighted that the quality of fit depends heavily on model
characteristics, including sample size and model complexity. More complex models with
larger samples should not be held to the same strict standards as simple models with small
samples. In conclusion, no single “magic” value for the fit indices separates good from poor
models, and it is not practical to apply a single set of cut-off rules to all measurement models
and, for that matter, to all SEM models of any type. The fact stands that postulated models
(no matter how good) can only fit real-world data approximately and never exactly (Byrne,
2010, p. 76).
Chapter 6: Owner Participation Analysis
133
Figure 6.11: The merged structural model (model fit).
Chapter 6: Owner Participation Analysis
134
Evidence of a good fit was indicated by CMIN/DF = 1.395, GFI = 0.815, TLI = 0.917,
CFI = 0.923, RMSEA = 0.043, AGFI = 0.791 and the Probability (p value) = 0.000 which is
better than its original model (Table 6.5). Therefore, the merged structural model could be
used for further qualitative analysis approach in the next chapter.
Table 6.5: The comparison between the merged structural model (unfit) and merged
structural model (fit).
FINAL STRUCTURAL MODEL
Goodness of Fit
Indices
Merged Structural
Model (Unfit)
Merged Structural
Model (Fit)
Desired Levels
CMIN/DF 1.512 1.395 < 2.00
GFI 0.750 0.815 > 0.9
TLI 0.864 0.917 > 0.9
CFI 0.871 0.923 > 0.9
RMSEA 0.048 0.043 <0.06
AGFI 0.727 0.791 > 0.9
There were two conditions that could be derived from the merged structural model:
Condition 1
Condition 1 involves 3 main factors namely owner participation, development success
factors and owner satisfaction. It normally occurs during the normal development stages of
the detached house development (development success factors). The final structural model
had provided the equation for this condition:
Owner Satisfaction = 0.37 (Owner Participation) + 0.03 (Development Success Factors)
OS = 0.37 OP + 0.03 DSF
Say, OP & DF = 1
OS = 0.37 (1) + 0.03 (1)
OS = 0.40
Condition 2
Condition 2 involves 3 main factors namely owner participation, development barriers and
owner satisfaction. It normally occurs during the problematic development stages of the
detached house development (development barriers). The final structural model had provided
the equation for this condition:
Chapter 6: Owner Participation Analysis
135
Owner Satisfaction = 0.42 (Owner Participation) + 0.42 (Development Barriers)
OS = 0.42 OP + 0.42 DB
Say, OP & DB = 1
OS = 0.42 (1) + 0.42 (1)
OS = 0.84
Owner participation was critical at three important stages of a detached house
development namely during the project initiation, project contracting and project completion
stage. In the project initiation stage, owner participation was most required during selection of
the development team or consultants, preparation of the development objectives and
acquiring the appropriate source to finance the development. In the project contracting stage,
owner participation was crucial during the selection of the contractor who will carry out the
construction works, contributing in the negotiation process with the contractor as well as the
process of handing over the site to the contractor. Finally, in the project completion phase the
owner also needs to provide instructions for variation order (if any), provide consent on
extension of time claims and assisting in determining faults and repair works during the
defect liability period.
The most important of the development success factors for detached houses falls under
three main components namely communication factor, planning and monitoring factor and
health and reputation factor. The indicators in the communication factor, includes the
necessity of development needs to achieve its intended scope or objective, the obligation of
the development to fulfill its functional requirement and most importantly the development
needs to fully satisfy the expectation if its customer, client and/or owner. In planning and
monitoring factor, the main indicators were the development must have an effective
monitoring and control system, exceptionally high performance from the consultants and
contractors and a realistic project schedule for all stakeholders. Reputation factor revolves
around the issue of the development bearing the output and profit as initially planned,
provides benefit to various stakeholders in the development and having a solid
communication and response system for the development.
The most significant development barriers for detached house were included in three
main categories. They were design and site barrier, market and safety barrier and regulation
and procurement barrier. In design and site barrier, the failure of the detached house design or
design changes was one of the most significant barriers for detached houses. This was
Chapter 6: Owner Participation Analysis
136
followed by the shortage of manpower and construction materials and the delays of design
drawings by the consultants that could impede construction progress. In the market and safety
barrier, the consultant’s revenue was the main concern followed by competition from other
consultants and contractors, the prediction of the current and future property market’s
momentum, the financial projection and cash flow of the development and the overall
condition of the development site. Lastly in the regulation and procurement barrier, the
planning permission or approval from the local authority was the main concern of the
consultants. This was followed by the selection of suitable contractor for the development and
the consultants’ liability of the development under the rule of law.
In terms of owner satisfaction, there were seven indicators that were significantly
related to it. They include the size of the kitchen, a timely manner of the project delivery, the
ability of the house to carry out its intended function, the quality of the materials used in the
development, the aspect of water supply of the house, the attractiveness of the overall design
of the house and the aspect of ventilation of the house.
Even though, it seems that the development success factors and owner participation had
a low loading of 0.37. Between the development barriers and owner participation, it had a
slightly higher loading of 0.42. It could be initially assumed that owner participation have a
more important role when the development was facing problems (barriers) rather than when it
was running its normal course (factor). The same goes between development success factors
and barriers with owner satisfaction. When the development was going on normally (factor),
it had a minimal contribution to the satisfaction of the owner with its factor loading of 0.03.
However, resolving development barriers of the development had a bigger impact towards
owner satisfaction with a loading of 0.42.
6.6 SUMMARY
This chapter had highlighted the usage of structural equation modelling as a method to
produce a model that is purely based on the results of the quantitative approach. It takes the
results provided by the factor analysis in Chapter 5 and combined it as a measurement model
to test its validity. Once it had been confirmed, each of the four main factors was analysed for
goodness-of-fit (GOF). Once each of the main factors was made to fit, they are combined into
one merged structural model based on the literature. This merged structural model was again
analysed for GOF and the result was taken to the next chapter to be analysed qualitatively.
Chapter 6: Owner Participation Analysis
137
In many case SEM could only assist in developing a measurement model that followed
the goodness-of-fit indicators. It was not the absolute measurement model that the researcher
had to take in blindly. This is because as model become more complex, the likelihood of
alternative models with equivalent fit increases (or competitive fit) (Hair et al., 2006, p. 756).
Therefore, the researcher needs another method to further analyse the model output. This was
to ensure that the model output reflects the condition of the real world.
This quantitative method could only take this research so far. In terms of utilising SEM,
simply modifying the indicators to make the model fit does not necessarily make the model
more applicable in the real world. For instance, in the financial world where policy makers
apply models to predict and control the capital market, it was far from perfection.
Kocherlakota and Ohanian (2007, p. 359) highlighted that “by simply adding shocks to
models in order to make them fit the data better should not improve our confidence in those
models’ predictions for the impact of policy changes. Instead, we need to find ways to
improve our information about the models’ key parameters. Auxiliary data sources will serve
as our best source of reliable information about the key parameters in monetary models”.
In this case, this research needs to refer to another outside source to identify the
implication of the key parameters suggested by the SEM model in the real world. By utilising
the second method of this research (qualitative method), it was easier to improve and validate
the findings of the quantitative method. The semi-structured analysis was employed to further
analyse this model output which will be elaborated in the next chapter.
Chapter 7: Semi-Structured Interview Analysis
138
CHAPTER 7: SEMI-STRUCTURED
INTERVIEW ANALYSIS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter will elaborate on the semi-structured interview that was conducted as a
part of the quantitative and qualitative analysis for this research. The results of this interview
was utilised to fine tune the indicators of the model that was discovered in the previous
chapter. This chapter consists of seven sections. After the introduction, the second section
explained about the execution of the semi-structured interviews. It continued with the third
section which describes the background summary of the participant and their development. In
Section 3, the responses of the participants were analysed using content analysis with the
assistance of QSR Nvivo software. In Section 4, the findings of the content analysis were
validated against the merged structural model of the Chapter 6 and a final structural model
was produced based on the findings of the quantitative and qualitative findings of this
research were presented in Section 5. Section 6 provided the indicators loading analysis
which was utilised to determine the degree of impact an indicator has on its main factor. This
chapter ended with a summary in Section 7.
7.2 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS
Semi-structured interview was well suited for this exploratory research. This is because
interviewing can be a very useful tool, especially in unexplored areas or very sensitive topics
(Adams, 2010, p. 21). It does not only provide the researcher with the response that he/she
requires for the study but also probes into the deeper more often complex issue of the subject
that was being discussed. According to Louise Barriball, K. and A. While (1994, p. 330),
semi-structured interviews are well suited for the exploration of the perceptions and opinions
of respondents regarding complex and sometimes sensitive issues and enable probing for
more information and clarification of answers.
7.2.1 Interview Guide
Even though the interview is a semi-structured, the interview participant was given the
freedom to explain beyond what was prepared by the researcher. The conversation, however,
was carefully steered in order to prevent it from going off-topic. For this purpose, an
Chapter 7: Semi-Structured Interview Analysis
139
interview guide was prepared. The purpose of the interview guide was to probe into the
experience of interview participants in developing a particular detached house development
from inception to completion. The guide had three major themes (for detailed guide please
refer to Appendix G):
Theme 1: Planning Stage;
Theme 2: Design and Contractual Stage;
Theme 3: Construction and Completion Stage.
By extracting the activities or issues from the interview participants, it could be
correlated to the merged structural model and the qualitative significance of the indicators in
the model could be determined. It was not the intention of this semi-structured interview to
represent the opinion of the entire detached house owners or consultant & contractors in
Malaysia. Rather, the interview process was more of a validation process to ensure the final
structural model proposed by the quantitative and qualitative method reflected the conditions
of the real world.
7.2.2 Interview Analysis
The proposed model that was derived from the structural equation modelling (SEM)
was correlated to the findings of the qualitative analysis to improve its findings. From the
recommendations of this research’s panellist, eight panels of experts were chosen to be
interviewed using semi-structured interview. An interview guide was prepared based on the
research’s theoretical framework and objectives as well as the requirements of the
university’s human ethics research committee. The interviews was conducted in Malaysia and
recorded using a voice recorder. The recording was reproduced as transcripts and translations
of the interviews in English were prepared. The relevant indicators were manually extracted
from the interviews. This was done to keep the translation and context of the conversation
intact as it goes through the analysis process.
The interview results were then correlated to the findings of the quantitative analysis
and improved accordingly based on the response of the interview participant. Most of the
indicators in the model were retained except for a few indicators that were not mentioned
even by one interview participant or were superseded in terms of relevance by other
indicators. These irrelevant indicators were subjected for replacement by other indicators (in
the same component) that were mentioned by the participants. The entire updated model that
Chapter 7: Semi-Structured Interview Analysis
140
had the input of the quantitative and qualitative analysis was analysed again (using SEM) and
made to fit.
This process was crucial because as a model gets more complicated, there were many
alternatives for the model to fit (or competitive fit) (Hair et al., 2006, p. 756). Reise,
Widaman and Pugh (1993, p. 565) had gone even further by indicating that many experts (on
CFA modelling) consider modification indices dangerous, enabling mere "data fitting" or the
post hoc modification of models without a priori, theoretical justification. Therefore, this
research overcomes this issue by correlating the model produced by SEM and the responses
of the interview participants. In addition, recommendations from the participants were also
noted for future studies regarding the issues of detached houses.
Validity and Reliability
Qualitative research is defined by Strauss & Corbin (1990, p. 17) as “any kind of
research that produces findings not arrived at by means of statistical procedures or other
means of quantification”.
Due to the different nature of the qualitative analysis, there were issues pertaining
validity and reliability in the field of qualitative research. The concepts were viewed
differently by qualitative researchers who strongly consider these concepts defined in
quantitative terms as inadequate. Corbin & Strauss (2008, p. 301) stated that the terms
“validity” and “reliability” carry with them too many quantitative implications. In other
words, these terms as defined in quantitative terms may not apply to the qualitative research
paradigm (Golafshani, 2003, p. 600). Stewin (1988, p. 61) quoted LeCompte & Goetz (1982)
that reliability is difficult to measure in qualitative research because of the nature of the
narrative data and the involvement of the researcher in a change process; yet, they proceeded
to force qualitative methods to fit criteria for external and internal reliability.
Therefore, in terms of reliability there were numerous instances in the interview where
the questions were repeated in many forms. This was to ensure the reliability of the
participant’s response when they stick to their initial response no matter how the same
questions were presented to them. Through the use of repeated observations during the
interview as well as building in the use of “alternate form” questions, the reliability of the
informant’s report can be ascertained (Brink, 1987, p. 158). In terms of the translation of the
data, the fact that there was only one translator working methodologically translating and
extracting all the data maximises the reliability of data itself (Twinn, 1997, p. 423).
Chapter 7: Semi-Structured Interview Analysis
141
LeCompte & Goetz (1982, p. 43) had stressed that the high internal validity of
ethnography (qualitative method) was derived from the data collection and analysis
techniques. This was confirmed by Goodwin & Goodwin (1984, p. 418) who narrated that in
qualitative measurement, content validity is the extent to which the data collection strategy
provides for a representative sampling of times, events, persons or settings. In addition, the
content validity must be achieved in terms of data analysis and interpretation techniques
employed. In general, the validity of the research was increased by the collection of
qualitative data that were rich in their explanation and analysis (Collis & Hussey, 2003, p.
65).
7.2.3 Interview Process
This semi-structured interview was conducted in Malaysia between April to May 2011.
It was conducted simultaneously with the distribution of the questionnaire. It serves the
purpose to validate the findings of the questionnaire survey and was not intended to represent
the population of this research.
Eight participants were chosen to be interviewed in this interview. Four of them were
detached house owners and another four were from the construction consultant companies.
All of them had a professional background in the construction sector and had working
experience and academic knowledge of the sector. None of the participants were related to
each other in terms of their detached houses development projects. All participants were
native Bahasa Malaysia as well as English speaking Malaysians. The interview adhered to the
Queensland University of Technology ethical guidance and obtained ethical approval and
participation informed consent (refer Appendix A and Appendix G).
The interviews were designed to gather information on the participants’ experience
developing their own or their clients’ detached house. The interview covers the typical
themes of a construction process namely planning stage, design and contractual stage and
construction and completion stage. All interviews were conducted at the participants’ office
and were recorded using an audio voice recorder. The actual recorded time for the interviews
ranges from 13 minutes up to 26 minutes. The interview responses and coding summary can
be reviewed in Appendix H and Appendix I.
The respondents were selected based on their previous experience in practicing their
discipline in the construction industry as well as the academic knowledge in related fields.
Chapter 7: Semi-Structured Interview Analysis
142
This was to ensure that their response shall not likely be on what they feel or perceive but
more importantly their responses connection to the academic knowledge as well.
7.3 PARTICIPANT AND DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND
The following were the background summary of the interview that was conducted on
four detached house owners and four detached house consultants / contractors. The indicators
that were mentioned in the interview by the participants’ were utilised to validate the merged
structural model explained in Chapter 6. The detailed breakdown of the participants’
responses can be referred in Appendix H and Appendix I of this thesis.
7.3.1 Participant 1: Detached House Owner (MMD)
The interview with Dr. MMD was conducted on the 7th
April 2011. Dr. MMD was a
detached house owner. The development cost of the house was below RM250,000
(AU$78,600). The owner works as a senior quantity surveying lecturer in a local university
for the past 18 years. In terms of the house’s design, the owner had specified the design of the
house in general terms and left the detailed design process to the architect. This development
had faced problems and experienced delays.
The owner faced a number of issues in developing his detached house. First of all, he
was not that impressed with the design of the house after it was completed. This may be the
result of him being unable to participate during the design stage due to time constrain. In
addition, the owner also had no formal knowledge in house design. The absence of a proper
contracting and tendering process led the development into deeper trouble. Due to its ‘low’
development value (compared to other detached houses), this development was not able to
implement proper contractual procedure into the development. Instead, it had only utilised a
standard agreement put forward by a general lawyer. This was the current requirement for
government staffs those who took government loans to build houses
(Ministry_of_Finance_Malaysia, 2011). Due to the lack of information, the selection of the
contractor was made based on contractors’ previous projects and assumptions. This leaves the
development in a dangerous state even before it began.
The implementation of an agreement form instead of a proper contractual form resulted
in the absence of a proper schedule and detailed specification. Even if the agreement monitors
the progress by percentages and had a rudimentary form of specification, they were not
specific enough which leaves the owner exposed to a number of exploitations. As a result, the
development was delayed and the relevant parties had disputed amongst themselves.
Chapter 7: Semi-Structured Interview Analysis
143
Ultimately, this case was brought to the Court for arbitration. The owner claimed that the
contractor was not diligent enough to carry out the development and did not fully comply
with the specification. The contractor in the other hand claimed that the owner had taken his
time to make important decisions regarding the development. In the end, the related parties
had settled their differences out of court.
There was a deeper issue to be seen in this case. Firstly, it was the utilisation of a
general lawyer to oversee the contractual issues in construction projects. Next, the application
of an agreement form for the development. Lastly, it was the lack of information about
contractor performance to the general public.
7.3.2 Participant 2: Detached House Owner (BK)
The interview with Sr. BK was conducted on the 17th
April 2011. Sr. BK was a
detached house owner. The development cost of the house was below RM250,000
(AU$78,600). The owner used to be a senior quantity surveying lecturer in a local university
before working as a Contract Administrator in the oil and gas industry at the Middle East. In
terms of the house’s design, Sr. BK was involved hands-on with the design of the house with
the architect. He had also changed the structural design of the house from non-load bearing to
a load bearing wall. These two factors had immense implication to the implementation of the
development.
There were a number of unique issues regarding this particular development. Due to his
previous experiences in the construction industry, the owner had in a way ‘taken over’ the
project from all the parties. The hands-on involvement of the owner in terms of design had
resulted in the design of the house somewhat ‘unproportionate’. This was due to the owner’s
lack of knowledge in building design. The situation was made worse with the architect’s
attitude of accepting every opinion of the owner without incorporating his own
recommendations to the design.
The absence of a proper contracting and tendering process plunges the development
into deeper trouble as it proceeded into the implementation stage. Again, the use of general
lawyer had resulted in the absence control documents such as the building quantities, project
schedule and specification. The owner’s decision to select the contractor that he had known
complicates matters.
The earthwork issues on site did not help in speeding up the development. A unique
issue in this development was when the owner decides to make a major change by replacing
Chapter 7: Semi-Structured Interview Analysis
144
the structural design of the house from non-load bearing to a load bearing wall using concrete
masonry units. It was expected to reduce the temperature inside the house while speeding up
the construction process. However, the absence of skilled worker to handle the concrete
masonry units did not provided any effect to speed up the construction process.
7.3.3 Participant 3: Detached House Owner (PMS)
The interview with Assc. Prof. PMS was conducted on the 27th
April 2011. Assc. Prof.
PMS was a detached house owner. The development cost of the house was below RM250,000
(AU$78,600). The owner was a senior interior design lecturer in a local university. In terms
of the house’s design, the owner was involved hands-on with the design of the house with the
architect. He took a year to prepare the design of the house and had even gone all the way to
prepare a mock-up model of it. With his background and through design of the house, the
project had very minimal problems during its early stages of development. However, this
development had still faced obstacles along its way.
The appointment of a general lawyer resulted in the absence of control documents such
as contract documents (only an agreement form), detailed project specification and project
schedule. The contractor themselves were selected by the owner out of the lowest quotation
price and assumptions of their previous projects. Extensive negotiation on the development
cost with the contractor had resulted in the contractor using the lowest quality of materials in
the project. This was made worse as the specification and drawings did not specify the
materials that were required. The owner had responded by ordering a number of material
changes due to the general specifications of the project which had bumped the development
cost back to its original figure. The failure of the contractor to identify minute design in the
project drawing had made the owner to come to site as often as possible to check the works of
the contractor.
There was a deeper issue here when there were claims by the owner that there was a
“teaming up” between the contractor and the lawyer resulting in works that were below the
“normal” standard. The inability of the lawyer to produce a precise control documents in the
agreement had opened up an enormous opportunity for the contractor to manipulation the
situation in his favour.
7.3.4 Participant 4: Detached House Owner (PMH)
The interview with Assc. Prof. PMH was conducted on the 12th
May 2011. Assc. Prof.
PMH was a detached house owner. The development cost of the house was below
RM250,000.00 (AU$78,600). The owner was a senior town planning lecturer in a local
Chapter 7: Semi-Structured Interview Analysis
145
university. In terms of the house’s design, the owner had specified the design of the house in
general terms and left the detailed design process to the architect. This development had faced
problems and experienced delays.
The selection of contractor was made out of the lowest quotation price and assumptions
of their previous projects. There were instances where the contractor was unable to follow the
design in the drawings because the contractor had relied on their past experiences rather than
following the architect’s designs. Because this development was financed using a government
loan, a lawyer had to be appointed. The lawyer had implemented the usage of a general
agreement form which had led to the absence of control documents such as contract
documents (only an agreement form), detailed project specification and project schedule.
There were also issues of designs as there were a number of overdesigns of a house’s
feature. This was clear in terms of the house’s number of windows. The owner had to remove
some of the windows as it was constructed to avoid glaring in the interior of the house. In
addition, there were material changes by the owner due to the general specifications of the
project.
7.3.5 Participant 5: Consultant & Contractor (NMH)
This interview with Mrs. NMH was conducted on the 10th
May 2011. Mrs. NMH was a
quantity surveyor (QS) for two years before becoming a lecturer for six years. She had
experience in developing a particular detached house in Kuala Lumpur. The development cost
of the house was about RM3 million (AU$0.94 million). However, she was mostly involved
in the pre-contract stage namely in preparing estimates.
Due to the high development value, this development had followed the proper
development procedure of a detached house. However, it was not without issues. The
duration for preparing general design and estimation took up to six months to complete. This
was because of the client kept changing the design, finishes and fittings due to his preference.
7.3.6 Participant 6: Consultant & Contractor (MEM)
This interview with Mr. MEM was conducted on the 10th
May 2011. Mr. MEM was a
quantity surveyor (QS) for seven years before becoming a lecturer in a local university. He
had experience in developing detached house especially in Kelana Jaya. The development
cost of the house was about RM2 million (AU$0.63 million) and had a slight delay of three
months.
Chapter 7: Semi-Structured Interview Analysis
146
Due to the high development value, this development had followed the proper
development procedure of a detached house. However, it was not without issues. The client
kept changing the design, finishes and fittings due to his preference. Even though this
development did not utilise a proper project schedule, it uses the PAM 98 contract form. This
was a standard contract form produced by the Malaysian Architect Association suitable to be
used for private developments in Malaysia.
There were slight issues of flooding on the development site but it was something that
was unavoidable. During the implementation stage of the development, the client had mostly
leave it to the consultant team that he had appointed to handle it. Even the development had a
slight delay of 3 months, the client was satisfied with the outcome of the development.
7.3.7 Participant 7: Consultant & Contractor (NSL)
This interview with Mrs. NSL was conducted on the 11th
May 2011. Mrs. NSL was a
quantity surveyor (QS) for six years before becoming a lecturer in a local university. She had
experience in developing detached house especially in Petaling Jaya. This development
involved four detached houses with a development value of about RM12 million (AU$3.77
million). Therefore this interview only specified on a house in that particular development. It
had a slight delay of four months.
Due to the high development value, this development had followed the proper
development procedure of a detached house. However, it was not without issues. Due to the
sheer size and value of this development, the planning stage alone took six months to be
finalised. Even with that, the client did not finalise the specification of the house. As the
development went forward, the client (and wife) kept changing the design, features, finishes
and fittings due to their preference. This had resulted in numerous amounts of variation orders
in the development.
The site of the development had also contributed to the delay of the development.
During the soil test, the engineer had failed to identify the rocky condition of the sub-soil of
the site. There were tremendous amount of earthwork and rock excavation due to the location
of site on hilly and rocky area. This meant that retaining walls have to be erected in some
areas of the site. This had led to the loss of time for site preparation works and a super-
expensive price tag for it.
In the end, the consultants had completed the development by balancing the need to
fully complying with the owner and what was obliged on them in the contract. The owner was
Chapter 7: Semi-Structured Interview Analysis
147
not that satisfied as his (and his wife’s) demands were not fully fulfilled. The participant
claimed that this was due to the inability of client to comprehend the obligation to follow
contract.
7.3.8 Participant 8: Consultant & Contractor (AAA)
This interview with Ar. AA was conducted on the 22nd
May 2011. Ar. AA was an
architect for twenty five years and his own practice. He had experience in developing
detached house in Shah Alam. This particular development has a development value of about
RM1 million (AU$0.31 million). It had a slight delay of six to eight months.
Due to the high development value, this development had followed the proper
development procedure of a detached house. However, it was not without issues. Typical for
this kind of development, there were changes by the client during design and construction
stage of the development.
In terms of the construction stage, there was delay when the first contractor was not
able to finish the job. A second contractor had to be engaged to continue on with the works
until it was completed. In the end, there were no major problems with the development.
While the architect was not impressed with the quality of the workmanship but the client was
‘happy enough’ with it.
7.4 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW ANALYSIS
The responses of the participants in the semi-structured interviews were then correlated
to the 42 indicators in the merged structural model in Chapter 6. In order for the indicators to
be included in the finalised model, it had to be mentioned by the participants in the interview
session. Other indicators that were mentioned in the interviews but were not listed in the
merged structural model were considered for replacement as long as it was in the same
construct as the original indicator.
Table 7.1 summarises the findings from the data extraction process from the interview
transcripts. The numbers represent how many times an indicator was mentioned whether in a
positive or negative manner by a participant during the interview session. Table 7.2 represents
the indicators that were mentioned in the interviews but was not present in the merged
structural model.
Chapter 7: Semi-Structured Interview Analysis
148
Table 7.1: The data extraction from the original indicators in the merged structural
model.
Indicators
(proposed by
quantitative method) Code
Number of positive or negative responses by interview
participant
Total MMD BK PMS PMH NMH MEM NSL AAA
Technical
specifications 1i 2 1 3
1
7
Functional
requirements 1j 1 1
1 1
1 5
Customer / client /
owner satisfaction 1g 5 3 7
2 4 5 5 31
Quality according to
contract 1c 6 1 5 2
2 1 1 18
Effective monitoring /
control 1t 6 6 7 8 1 3 4 2 37
Realistic schedule 1s 3 2 2
1 1 1 1 11
Good performance by
suppliers / contractors
/ consultants 1u 2 14 7 4
2 1
30
Competent project
manager 1r
1 1
Benefit to stakeholder 1m
1
1
2
Reputation 1k 1
1
1 1 2 1 7
Political stability 1n
0
Good communication 1p
1 3 1 2 7 3 17
Contractor delays 2o 3 2
1 6
Manpower / material
shortage 2s 2 2
4
Design failures /
changes 2q 1 5
1 2
9
Financial projection 2c 1
1 2
4
Market prediction 2a
0
Health and safety 2p
0
Planning permission 2j
3 2
1
6
Contractor selection 2m 1 2 2 2
1 1 2 11
Legal Liability 2v
0
Monitoring liquidated
and ascertain
damages claim 3z
0
Overseeing progress
payment 3v 3 1 3 1
1 3 1 13
Attending site
meetings 3s
1 1 1
1 1 2 7
Negotiation with
contractor 3q 4 1 4
9
Chapter 7: Semi-Structured Interview Analysis
149
Table 7.1: The data extraction from the original indicators in the merged structural
model (continued).
Indicators
(proposed by
quantitative method) Code
Number of positive or negative responses by interview
participant
Total MMD BK PMS PMH NMH MEM NSL AAA
Handing over
possession of site to
the contractor 3r
0
Contractor selection 3p
2 2 2
1 1 2 10
Estimating the
project’s cost 3e 3
6
3 1 13
Determining the
project’s specification 3k 4 1 1 2
1
9
Design compliance
with legal
requirement 3j
1 2 2
2
2 9
The numbers of
bedroom 15d 2 1
3
The size of the living
room 15g
1
1
2
The size of the master
bedroom's bathroom 15f
1
1
The build area of the
house 15c
1 3 1 2 1 1
9
The size of the
kitchen 15h
2
1
3
The overall design of
the house 15a 3 4 2 2 4 1 2 1 19
The overall quality of
the house compared
to its specifications 15p 6 1 5 2
2
1 17
The delivery of the
project (time) 15o 2 3 2
1 2 1 11
The quality of the
construction materials
used 15i 3 1 7 2 1 4 7 1 26
Electrical supply 15k
2
1 3
Water supply 15j
4
4
Air ventilation 15l 2 1
3
Chapter 7: Semi-Structured Interview Analysis
150
Table 7.2: Data extraction from the proposed replacement indicators for the merged
structural model.
Indicators to be
incorporated into
the merged model
Number of positive or negative comments
by interview participant on indicators to be
incorporated into the model
Total
Indicator to be
removed from
the merged
model MM
D
BK
PM
S
PM
H
NM
H
ME
M
NS
L
AA
A
Political stability
(1n)
Revenue and
profits (1l)
3 2
5
Health and
safety (2p)
Competitor’s
interest (2b)
2 1 2
1 1 1 8
Market
prediction (2a)
Site condition
(2d)
1
1 5
7
Legal Liability
(2v)
Building
regulations (2i)
1 3 1
1
1 7
Monitoring
liquidated and
ascertain
damages claim
(3z)
Overseeing
making good of
defects during
Defects Liability
Period (3aa)
3
3
Handing over
possession of
site to the
contractor (3r)
Monitoring
progress of works
(3t) 2
2 4
2 1 3 14
Design
compliance with
legal
requirement (3j)
Planning internal
and external
design (3i) 9 9 10 3 4 2 8 10 55
The size of the
master
bedroom's
bathroom (15f)
Size of master
bedroom (15e)
1
1
2
The recorded interviews were meticulously transcribed and translated. This was done
by the researcher himself to avoid any improper translation or worse misinterpretation where
the translation went out of context. The data extraction from the translated transcription was
done manually and catalogued digitally with the assistance of the QSR NVivo software.
Indicators from each interview were extracted and correlated to the merged structural
model that was acquired in the previous chapter. There were three indicator conditions from
this data extraction. Firstly, a particular indicator was maintained because it was mentioned in
the interviews. Secondly, a particular indicator was replaced because it was not mentioned in
Chapter 7: Semi-Structured Interview Analysis
151
the interviews (coloured red in Table 7.1). Thirdly, a particular indicator was replaced
because its replacement was a more relevant solution and was mentioned as the same or even
more times than the original indicator (coloured orange in Table 7.1).
Condition two and three provide a chance for the researcher to improve the model. This
is because as the model becomes more complex, the likelihood of alternative (and more
relevant) models with equivalent fit increases (Hair et al., 2006, p. 756). However, careful
consideration must be taken in changing of the model indicators. Those considerations
include the replacement of an indicator had to be made by an indicator in the same
component. For example, if the original indicator was in the ‘Spatial Design’ it must be
replaced by the indicator in the same group. After the new replaced indicators were loaded
the improvised model with its new indicators must be reanalysed and to be made to fit as
possible. This need to be done so that the placement of the new indicators does not sacrifice
the overall fit of the model. With this, the model had successfully integrated the results of the
quantitative and the qualitative analysis of this research.
With that particular goal, some changes made to the related indicators after considering
the input from the semi-structured interviews. There were six indicators that were not
mentioned by any of the interview participants. They include “political stability (1n)”,
“market prediction (2a)”, “health and safety (2p)”, “legal liability (2v)”, “monitoring
liquidated and ascertain damages claim (3z)” and “handing over possession of site to the
contractor (3r)”. There were also 2 indicators that were mentioned by the interview
participants but had to be replaced. This was because replaced as their replacements had
better response from the interview participants and made more sense in terms of their
meaning when compared to the real-world condition. The two indicators were “handing over
possession of site to the contractor (3r)” and “design compliance with legal requirement (3j)”.
Justifications of Indicator Replacements
The indicator “political stability (1n)” had to be replaced because it was not mentioned
by either of the interview participants. Therefore, this indicator was replaced by another
indicator of the same component namely the “revenue and profits (1l)” indicator. The
possibility of generating considerable amounts of revenue and profits was the main drive of
the construction industry. The “revenue and profits” indicator was also mentioned by
participant PMS and PMH. For that reason, “revenue and profits” indicator was more suited
to replace the political stability indicator.
Chapter 7: Semi-Structured Interview Analysis
152
The indicator “market prediction (2a)” had to be replaced because it was not mentioned
by either of the interview participants. This was due to the nature of the detached houses
market segment itself. Typically, detached houses were bought or built as a family home
where the owner (and his/her family) will reside in the house. Rarely people bought detached
houses as an investment to be rented out. This situation made the detached houses market
more resilient against speculative pressure. Therefore, this indicator will be replaced by
another indicator of the same component namely the “competitor’s interest (2b)” indicator.
“Competitor’s interest” indicator describes on how normally the detached houses were
contracted out to the contractor (and consultants) in a more competitive manner. For the
contractors, they were usually required to submit their quotations to be selected or they were
required bid in an open or selective tender. This benefited the owner as he/she had a choice to
choose whichever contractor that suited them the most. The “competitor’s interest” indicator
was also mentioned by participant BK, PMS, PMH, MEM, NSL and AAA. For that reason,
competitor’s interest was more suited to replace the “market prediction” indicator.
The indicator “health and safety (2p)” had to be replaced because it was not mentioned
by either of the interview participants. Due to the small size of detached house development,
this factor was not as relevant compared to other larger types of mass housing development.
This was not to say that the aspect of health and safety were not being given any attention in
detached housing developments rather it was not the main focus of the development as the
number of workers and hazards in detached housing construction sites were limited.
Therefore, this indicator will be replaced by another indicator of the same component namely
the “site condition (2d)” indicator. The condition of site was an important factor for any
development especially for the small scaled detached housing development. Any disturbances
on the site such as flooding or the existence of rocks in the subsoil (as what was described by
participant MEM and NSL), caused disturbances to the schedule and ultimately the budget of
the development. The “site condition” indicator was also mentioned by participant BK, MEM
and NSL. For that reason, site condition was more suited to replace the “health and safety”
indicator.
The indicator “legal liability (2v)” had to be replaced because it was not mentioned by
either of the interview participants. The term “legal liability” refers to the liability that the
consultant & contractor will bear when the development was completed, for the contractor,
their liability only stand during the defects liability period. For the consultants (namely the
architect), their liability on the design of the house lasted for longer duration. However, this
Chapter 7: Semi-Structured Interview Analysis
153
indicator does not seem to be the main concern of the interview participants of this research.
Therefore, this indicator will be replaced by another indicator of the same component namely
the “building regulations (2i)” indicator. The design of any building must comply with the
related regulations set out by the local authorities. Without the approval of the local authority
on the detached house’s design, it was impossible to proceed to the next step of the
development. This was mentioned by several participants namely BK, PMS, PMH, MEM and
AAA. For that reason, “building regulations” indicator was more suited to replace the “legal
liability” indicator.
The indicator “monitoring liquidates and ascertain damages (LAD) claim (3z)” had to
be replaced because it was not mentioned by either of the interview participants. In a contract,
owners usually have the right to claim damages from the contractor who were late in
completing their job. However, this action usually cause dispute and would halt the progress
of the development even further. Due to the small scale and value of detached house
development, this was not a popular choice to be taken by owners. Instead the interview
participants preferred to negotiate and in some extreme cases may even assist the contractor
in completing the development of their detached house. Therefore, this indicator will be
replaced with another indicator of the same component namely the “overseeing making good
defects during defects liability period (DLP) (3aa)”. DLP was usually included in the contract
to make sure that the contractor made repairs to the detached house that they had completed
without charge to the owner for a certain period of time. This instance was thoroughly
described by participant PMS as he directed the contractor to make repairs to his house after a
couple of days it was completed. For that reason, “overseeing making good defects during
defects liability period” indicator was more suited to replace “monitoring liquidates and
ascertain damages claim” indicator.
The indicator “handing over possession of site to the contractor (3r)” had to be replaced
because it was not mentioned by either of the interview participants. This step was usually
done unofficially for detached housing development and considered insignificant as the
development itself was small in its nature. In most cases, even as the site was ‘handed over’
to the contractor the owners were free to roam the site as he/she pleases. Therefore, this
indicator will be replaced with another indicator of the same component namely the
“monitoring progress of works (3t)”. Monitoring the site by the owner was important by most
of the owners to enable them to evaluate the progress of works, material quality as well as
making changes and improvements to the development. This was mentioned by several
Chapter 7: Semi-Structured Interview Analysis
154
participants namely MMD, PMS, PMH, MEM, NSL and AAA. For that reason, “monitoring
progress of works” indicator was more suited to replace “handing over possession of site to
the contractor” indicator.
The indicator “design compliance with legal requirement (3j)” was mentioned nine
times by five interview participants of this research. By right, it was supposed to be included
in the final structural model. However, the compliance of house design to the legal
requirement was not the primary concern of the owners. It was the main task of the consultant
(namely architect) to ensure that the design was able to comply with related regulations and
by-laws. There was another indicator in the same component that demands more attention
than the “design compliance with legal requirement” indicator. The indicator was named
“planning internal and external design (3i)”. A detached house is a very customised building
and requires the input of the owners to enable the architect to produce a design that would
satisfy the owner’s requirements. This was approved by all of the interview participants. All
of them had mentioned about the planning internal and external design indicator resulting of
it being mentioned fifty five times in the transcript. Due to the commanding presence,
“planning internal and external design” indicator was more suited to replace “design
compliance with legal requirement” indicator.
Finally, the indicator “the size of the master bedroom's bathroom (15f)” was mentioned
one time by participant BK in this interview. However, it was replaced by the researcher with
the indicator “the size of master bedroom (15e)”. Besides being mentioned two times by two
different participant (BK and NSL), the size of master bedroom indicator made more sense as
a detached house owner would positively wish for the best bedroom for himself instead of
having the best bathroom for himself. In addition, the loading of these two indicators was
somewhat similar and does not produce a significant effect towards the fitness of the model.
Therefore, the “size of the master bedroom's bathroom” indicator was replaced with “size of
the master bedroom” indicator. The indicators that will be substituted are highlighted red in
Figure 7.1 and its justifications are summarised in Table 7.3.
Chapter 7: Semi-Structured Interview Analysis
155
Figure 7.1: The indicators that are substituted based on the analysis results of the semi-
structured interviews (coloured red).
Chapter 7: Semi-Structured Interview Analysis
156
Table 7.3: The substitution of indicators based on the analysis results of the semi-
structured interviews.
Indicators to be removed Indicators to be inserted Replacement
justification Indicator Code Number
of times
mentioned
Indicator Code Number
of times
mentioned
Political
stability 1n 0
Revenue and
profits 1l 5
Original
indicator was
not mentioned
by participant
Market
prediction 2a 0
Competitor’s
interest 2b 8
Original
indicator was
not mentioned
by participant
Health and
safety 2p 0 Site condition 2d 7
Original
indicator was
not mentioned
by participant
Legal Liability 2v 0
Building
regulations 2i 7
Original
indicator was
not mentioned
by participant
Monitoring
liquidated and
ascertain
damages claim 3z 0
Overseeing
making good of
defects during
Defects
Liability Period 3aa 3
Original
indicator was
not mentioned
by participant
Handing over
possession of
site to the
contractor 3r 0
Monitoring
progress of
works 3t 14
Original
indicator was
not mentioned
by participant
Design
compliance with
legal
requirement 3j 9
Planning
internal and
external design 3i 55
Replacement
indicator was
more relevant
The size of the
master
bedroom's
bathroom 15f 1
Size of master
bedroom 15e 2
Replacement
indicator was
more relevant
Chapter 7: Semi-Structured Interview Analysis
157
7.5 FINAL STRUCTURAL MODEL
The merged structural model was correlated to the inputs of the semi-structured
interviews and improvements were made to the model. From the analysis done to the revised
model, it was clearly shown that no GOF adjustments need to be made to the final structural
model (Figure 7.1).
Figure 7.2: The final structural model (model fit).
Chapter 7: Semi-Structured Interview Analysis
158
There were no GOF adjustments need to be made on the final structural model due to
the fact that the final structural model had relatively maintained the values of its previous
version which was within the boundaries of a model fit (Table 7.4).
Table 7.4: The comparison of the merged structural model and the final structural
model of this research.
FINAL STRUCTURAL MODEL
Goodness of Fit
Indices
Merged Structural
Model (Fit)
Final structural
model (Fit)
Desired Levels
CMIN/DF 1.334 1.491 < 2.00
GFI 0.850 0.804 > 0.9
TLI 0.932 0.903 > 0.9
CFI 0.938 0.909 > 0.9
RMSEA 0.039 0.047 <0.06
AGFI 0.828 0.779 > 0.9
Revised Model Estimation
There were two conditions that could be derived from the final structural model.
Condition 1 involves three main factors namely owner participation, development success
factors and owner satisfaction. It normally occurs during the normal development stages of
the detached house development (development success factors). The final structural model
had provided the equation for this condition:
Owner Satisfaction = 0.29 (Owner Participation) + 0.02 (Development Success Factors)
OS = 0.29 OP + 0.02 DSF
Say, OP & DF = 1
OS = 0.29 (1) + 0.02 (1)
OS = 0.31
Condition 2 involves three main factors namely owner participation, development
barriers and owner satisfaction. It normally occurs during the problematic development stages
of the detached house development (development barriers). The final structural model had
provided the equation for this condition:
Chapter 7: Semi-Structured Interview Analysis
159
Owner Satisfaction = 0.38 (Owner Participation) + 0.46 (Development Barriers)
OS = 0.38 OP + 0.46 DB
Say, OP & DB = 1
OS = 0.38 (1) + 0.46 (1)
OS = 0.84
From both of the equations, it could be observed that the owner participation had a
bigger loading on development barriers (0.38) than development success factors (0.29).
Therefore, it could be considered that owner participation had bigger impact on development
barriers than development success factors. In terms of owner satisfaction, it was more
affected by development barrier (0.46) than development success factors (0.02). As a result, it
could be concluded that both of the development barrier and development success factors
provided a certain degree of satisfaction to the owner when they were involved in their
detached house development process. However, owner participation was more required when
the development was facing problems or issues rather than when the development was
running through its normal course. The owner’s participation during these difficult stages
provided them with more satisfaction than them being directly involved compared to when
the development runs its normal course.
7.6 INDICATORS LOADING ANALYSIS
This research could have proposed the guideline for a successful detached house
development in Malaysia based on the final structural model itself. However, this research
went a step further by identifying which indicator in the model had more impact on its main
factor than others. This way, the indicators could be ranked based on their influence towards
the main factors. This made further interpretation more meaningful.
To achieve this, the researcher relied on the factor loadings of the indicator itself and its
related construct. The “loading” or “coefficients” represent the degree of impact an indicator
in a particular construct on another (Hair et al., 2006, p. 725). Every main factor in the model
had two construct linked to it namely the components and its indicators. The researcher could
use this connection to identify the total loading that was related to an indicator and use it in
the form of percentage. In this case, the indicators’ loading in the first construct was added to
its second construct, averaged and multiplied by 100 to acquire their “averaged loading
percentages”. The equation was as follows:
Chapter 7: Semi-Structured Interview Analysis
160
[(1st construct loading + 2
nd construct loading) / 2] 100 = averaged loading percentage
Next, the indicators (or activities) that were likely to require the detached house owner
to participate were ranked according to their average loading percentages. It indicates how
much of an indicator was loaded in a particular factor. This implied the impact of an indicator
(or activity) in a particular factor. The degrees of impact of the four main factors were listed
and discussed in the following chapter.
The degrees of impact of the activities in the owner participation factor were as follows:
To negotiate terms with the contractor (91%);
To decide on the selection of contractor (91%);
To monitor the progress of works (85%);
To provide input for internal and external design (81%);
To oversee the process of progress payment (78%);
To assist in determining development specification (76%);
To attend the site meetings (74%);
To assist in the development cost estimation (74%);
To monitor the repair works during defects liability period (65%).
The degrees of impact of the activities in the development barrier were as follows:
The compliance towards construction regulations and by-laws (84%);
The selection process of the contractor (78%);
The approval for planning permission by local authorities (77%);
The financial projection of the development (73%);
The condition of the construction site (70%);
The interest of competition amongst consultants or contractor (67%);
The construction delay initiated by the contractor (52%);
The failure of the detached house’s design or design changes (49%);
Chapter 7: Semi-Structured Interview Analysis
161
The shortage of manpower or building materials (41%).
The degrees of impact of the activities in the development success factor were as
follows:
The development had determined its technical specifications (82%);
The development fulfills its intended functional requirements (80%);
The development created revenue and profits as been planned (80%);
The development generated good reputation for stakeholders (79%);
The development utilises an effective monitoring or control system (78%);
The development utilises a realistic project schedule (75%);
The development provides benefits to all stakeholders (73%);
The development focuses on the customers’ / clients’ / owners’ satisfaction (73%);
The exceptional performance of the consultant or contractor in the development
(73%);
The development practiced good communication culture (73%);
The development maintains its build quality according to contract (72%);
The development utilises a good project manager or superintending officer (66%).
The degrees of impact of the activities in the owner satisfaction factor were as follows:
Adequate space for air ventilation (88%);
Good water supply and fixings (86%);
Good electrical supply and installation (85%);
Quantity of bedrooms according to owner’s requirement (83%);
Adequate build area for the house (82%);
Adequate size of the family living room (82%);
Adequate size of the master bedroom (82%);
Chapter 7: Semi-Structured Interview Analysis
162
Overall quality of house compared to its specification (81%);
Adequate size of the kitchen (77%);
Quality of construction materials for the development (75%);
Acceptable deliverance of development in terms of time (72%);
The overall design of the detached house (71%).
7.7 SUMMARY
This chapter had revealed the execution process of the semi-structured interview for this
research. The results of this semi-structured interview were utilised to improve the results of
the SEM model. Firstly, the indicators that were in the merged structural model that was not
mentioned in the final structural model were replaced with another indicator (in the same
construct) that was mentioned by the participants of the interview. This meant that “political
stability”, “market prediction”, “health and safety”, “legal liability”, “monitoring liquidated
and ascertain damages claim” and “handing over possession of site to the contractor”
indicators were all replaced by “revenue and profits”, “competitor’s interest”, “site
condition”, “building regulations”, “overseeing making good of defects during defects
liability period” and “monitoring progress of works” respectively. Even though “design
compliance with legal requirement” were mentioned during the interviews, it was replaced
with the “planning internal and external design” due to the overwhelming responses of the
participants on the latter indicator. The same happened with “The size of the master
bedroom’s bathroom” where it was changed to “size of the master bedroom” due to the latter
being mentioned twice as much as the former and this switch made a lot more sense. Even
with these eight indicator changes, the model had maintained its GOF. It needs to be
highlighted that these changes were made solely to ensure that the improved model has a
more, according to Markland (2007, p. 858) substantive meaningfulness. The next chapter
will discuss more on the findings of this research.
Chapter 8: Discussion
163
CHAPTER 8: DISCUSSION
8.1 INTRODUCTION
This research had utilised a mixed method of quantitative and qualitative approaches to
explore the complex nature of detached housing scheme and owner participations. The
research framework in Chapter 4 scoped and guided the process of data collection and
analysis.
In the previous chapter, the proposed model was formulated through the analytical
process of structural equation modelling and the descriptive process of semi-structured
interviews. In this chapter, the output is discussed and its relevance in answering the original
research objectives is highlighted based on the model in Figure 8.1.
The aim of this research is to develop a guideline to improve owner participation for a
successful detached housing development project in Malaysia. The objectives are:
1. To identify critical development success factors and development barriers of
detached housing developments in Malaysia;
2. To determine the significance of owner participation for a successful detached
housing development;
3. To propose a guideline for owner participation for detached housing development in
Malaysia.
8.2 CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT SUCCESS FACTORS AND BARRIERS OF
DETACHED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN MALAYSIA
Figure 8.1 illustrates the achievement of the objectives. A blue dashed line represents
objective 1. It highlights the critical development success factors and development barriers
for detached housing development in Malaysia. A green dashed line represents objective 2
where it highlights the impact of owner participation to the success of detached housing
development (in terms of owner satisfaction). This association was put through the conditions
of development success factors or development barriers. An orange dashed line represents
objective 3 where the entire model itself is the actual guideline for owner participation for
detached housing development in Malaysia.
Chapter 8: Discussion
164
Figure 8.1: The final structural model and its relationship to the research’s objectives
(objective 1: blue, objective 2: green and objective 3: orange).
From the quantitative and qualitative analysis done to the four main factors
(development success factors, development barriers, owner participation and owner
satisfaction), it had now become the critical factors for detached housing development in
Malaysia. The first objective of the research is to identify critical development success factors
and critical development barriers of detached housing development. This is indicated by the
blue line in Figure 8.1.
Chapter 8: Discussion
165
8.2.1 Critical Development Success Factors
This thesis had revealed that the critical development success factors for detached
houses in Malaysia are represented by three components that contain twelve indicators
(Figure 8.1). The first component in the development success factors is the “Communication
Factor”. There are four indicators in this component namely the “Technical Specifications”,
“Functional Requirements”, “Customer / Client / Owner Satisfaction” and “Quality
According to Contract”. In order for a development to fulfil the technical, functional and
quality requirements that leads to client’s satisfaction, it is vital for the owner to convey all
his requirements to the consultant during the initial stage of the development. A number of
literatures had even gone further by proposing to involve the contractor during the inception
stage (Andre, 2012, p. 1; Song, Mohamed & AbouRizk, 2006, PM.S06.1; Trigunarsyah,
2004a, p. 862; West, 2012, p. 71). In the bigger scheme of things, communication is
considered as the “bonding agent” that will connect the fragmented parties in the construction
industry thus enables them to work together in harmony. Without proper communication, it
will be difficult for each party to work together to achieve the development’s target. Only
through communication each party knows which information the other party requires for
taking care of their operations according to the contract and what is required of the operations
of the other party (Kärnä, Juha-Matti & Veli-Matti, 2009, p. 123). Furthermore, by
communicating the related parties would develop a collaborative, respectful and trusting
relationship between the parties (Karlsen, 2010, p. 642) and this would benefit the
development tremendously.
The second component for development success factors is the “Planning and
Monitoring Factor”. There are four indicators related to this component namely “Effective
Monitoring / Control”, “Realistic Schedule”, “Good Performance by Suppliers / Contractors /
Consultants” and “Competent Project Manager”. Shapira at al. (1994, p. 181) describes in
reality, the project planning process is extremely complex, interconnected and dynamic, it is
possible, and indeed useful. A good plan and an effective implementation of that plan are
crucial in order for the development to achieve its intended target whether in terms of time,
cost or quality. This statement is corroborated by Twomey (2006, p. 103) who recommends
one to understand what causes delays and then to properly plan and manage schedule issues
before they become a problem are the key factors in keeping a project on track. As a matter of
fact, results in a study by Toor & Ogunlana (2009, p. 163) reveal that most of the high-rated
Critical Success Factors are related to project planning and control, personnel, and
involvement of client.
Chapter 8: Discussion
166
The third component for development success factors is the “Reputation Factor”. There
are also four indicators related with this component. They are “Benefit to Stakeholder”,
“Reputation”, “Revenue and Profits” and “Good Communication”. An important issue for a
project management team is to identify those stakeholders who can affect the project, and
then manage their differing demands through good communication in the early stages of a
project (Olander & Landin, 2005, p. 327). By involving the stakeholders of a particular
development, a greater benefit will be reaped by all parties in many ways (Brun & Jolley,
2011, p. 218).This is because all the parties involved in a development are in a way putting
their reputation on the line in the outcome of the development. A study by Permentier, Bolt &
van Ham (2011, p. 993), discovers that housing choice turned out to have a positive effect on
both neighbourhood satisfaction and perception of reputation. Therefore, it is important for
the consultant & contractor to produce the best outcome for their client’s detached house
development because not only it reflects on the client’s reputation but theirs as well. This will
impact the consultant’s and contractor’s job opportunities in the area in the long run. It is also
essential to engage contractors who are profitable (and reputable) because they are less likely
to have cash flow problems or run into financial difficulties, which will invariably delay the
project (Ling & Peh, 2005, p. 363).
8.2.2 Critical Development Barriers
This thesis had discovered that the critical development barriers for detached houses in
Malaysia are represented by three components that contain nine indicators (Figure 8.1). The
first component in the development barrier is the “Design and Site Barrier”. There are three
indicators in this component namely the “Contractor Delays”, “Manpower or Material
Shortage” and “Design Failure or Failure of Design Changes”. This is the most critical
obstacle that plagues the detached housing development in Malaysia. It is obvious through the
acknowledgement of the semi-structured interview participants of this research. This barrier
involves the consultants for poor designs and contractors for poor delivery. The participation
of owner, identification of user’s requirements and the establishment of the design criteria
must be conducted in the planning phase in order to produce a quality project Bubshait (1994,
p. 117). However, having the consultants to follow blindly what the owner wants in terms of
design is not the answer. Redström (2006, p. 136) recommends that fundamental problems
associated with design as not only centred on the user but also increasingly about designing
what use and user should be like. Designers must take care on how they use the notions of use
and users in their design. One of the most difficult decisions taken by the client is selection of
Chapter 8: Discussion
167
the contractor, because the inappropriateness of the selected contractor leads to substandard
work, delays, disputes, or even bankruptcy Hatush & Skitmore (1997, p. 36). A study on the
causes of delays in the Malaysia by Alaghbari et al. (2007, p. 204) determines that the first
out of four major factors causing delay in construction projects are factors due to the
contractor. This is concurred by a similar study by Assaf & Al-Hejji (2006, p. 355) in Saudi
Arabia where the owners specified that causes of delay are related to contractor and labours.
To overcome this issue, owners must resist the temptation of selecting builders (contractors)
solely based on price (Twomey, 2006, p. 105).
The second component for development barrier is the “Market and Safety Barrier”.
There are three indicators related to this component namely “Financial Projection”, “Site
Condition” and “Competitor’s Interest”. The site condition especially in terms of safety
aspects is important because it affects the progress of the development. Findings of Abdul-
Rahman et al.’s (2011, p. 211) study indicate that poor cash flow management, followed by
late payment, insufficient financial resources and financial market instability are the root
causes of financial-related delays. These conditions would provide an adverse effect to the
financial projection of any development project. In terms of safety, it is more suitable for the
owners to take a more small-scaled customised safety approach for their development.
Gambatese (2000, p. 665) proposed an owner safety program that could be developed for
each project undertaken, tailored to effectively address safety based on specific project
features. It can be concluded that the owner’s participation in project safety can significantly
influence project safety performance (Huang & Hinze, 2006b, p. 180).
The third component for development barrier is the “Regulation and Procurement
Barrier”. There are also three indicators related with this component. They are “Planning
Permission”, “Contractor Selection” and “Building Regulations”. Particularly, the housing
regulations that govern housing developments imposed by the Local Authorities must be
satisfied in order for the development to progress. This is (in theory) would ensure the quality
of the development by upholding the related rules and regulations. Nevertheless how far these
powers are practically enforced by the Ministry of Housing and Local Governments (MHLG)
still remains in doubt. All the authorities, in particular the local authorities, the MHLG and
the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) should properly enforce the powers
vested in them and take necessary steps to prevent non-committed developers and contractors
from entering into the business of housing development and construction industry (Sufian &
Rahman, 2008, p. 155).
Chapter 8: Discussion
168
8.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF OWNER PARTICIPATION FOR A SUCCESSFUL
DETACHED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
The second objective of the research is to identify the significance of owner
participation for a successful detached housing development in terms of owner satisfaction
indicated by the green line in Figure 8.1. Through the result of the final structural equation
model in Chapter 7, this thesis has determined the significance of owner participation for a
successful detached housing development. There are two conditions where owner
participation is needed are being tested. Owner participation is tested as the development is
going well through development success factors as well as when the development is facing
difficulties through development barriers. It is established that owner participation will
provide more significant impact when the development is facing development barriers than
when the development is experiencing success factors. This proves that owner participation is
more needed when the development is facing problems rather than when the development is
running its typical course.
In terms of owner satisfaction, it is identified that by assisting in resolving development
barrier the owner will have greater sense of satisfaction than nudging in to assist as the
development is experiencing success factors. This shows that a deeper sense of owner
satisfaction comes from the involvement of the owners in helping to resolve issues regarding
the development.
In terms of connecting the relationship of owner participation and owner satisfaction, it
is without a doubt that owner participation is crucial when the development is facing issues.
As the issues subside, it will bring a tremendously deeper sense of satisfaction to the owners
because of their assistance when they are needed the most. However, the involvement of
owner as the development is progressing as planned is also important but it is not as critical as
when the development is facing issues. The owner satisfaction in assisting during the smooth
run of the development is also a whole lot less and can almost be disregarded.
8.4 GUIDELINE FOR SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPMENT OF DETACHED HOUSES IN
MALAYSIA
The third objective of the research is to develop a guideline for a successful detached
housing development in Malaysia indicated by the orange line in Figure 8.1. The findings of
this thesis generated a guideline for the successful detached housing development in
Malaysia, all of the four main factors are included in the guideline. From the quantitative and
Chapter 8: Discussion
169
qualitative analysis done to the main factors, the entire model had become a guideline for
detached housing development in Malaysia.
Section 8.2 had elaborated two of the four critical factors that are needed to be carried
out when developing a detached house in Malaysia namely the “Critical Development
Success Factors” and “Critical Development Barriers”. This section has no intention to repeat
the argument but it will add to the argument of Section 8.2 with two other critical factors for a
successful detached housing development in Malaysia namely the “Critical Owner
Participation Factors” and “Critical Owner Satisfaction Factors”.
8.4.1 Critical Owner Participation Factors
This thesis had revealed that the owner participation for detached houses in Malaysia is
represented by three components that contain nine indicators (Figure 8.1). The first
component in the owner participation is the “Project Planning”. There are three indicators in
this component namely the “Estimating the Project’s Cost”, “Determining the Project’s
Specifications” and “Planning the Internal and External Design”. This are the most crucial
activities that the owner need to participate in any development projects. The findings of
Shapira et al. (1994, p. 179) identified three parties, the project manager, design engineers,
and client, are all involved, albeit with changing intensities, in all the planning stages. By
improving the planning aspect especially at very early stages of project implementation the
delivery of projects can be improved (Othman et al., 2006, p. 498).
The second component for owner participation is the “Project Contracting”. There are
three indicators related to this component namely “Negotiation with the Contractor”,
“Monitoring the Progress of Works” and “Contractor Selection”. This is an important stage
where the owner needs to select the best contractor for his development. The practice of
selecting contractor had evolved from a selection typically based on bid price alone which is
deficient in many respects Padhi & Mohapatra (2009, p. 222) which could lead to
inefficiencies in projects and poor project performance Zavadskas et al. (2008, p. 185), to
considering many other aspects as well as utilising latest algorithms and models Walraven &
de Vries (2009, p. 603). However, due to the small scaled nature of detached houses it was
inappropriate to apply such sophisticated measures just for the selection of contractor.
Therefore, besides considering the traditional approach of choosing the contractor with the
lower bids, owners should also consider the past performance of a contractor and his
competitiveness in terms of the quoted time of completion and the quoted warranty period
Padhi & Mohapatra (2009, p. 222).
Chapter 8: Discussion
170
The third component for owner participation is the “Project Completion”. There are
also three indicators related with this component. They are “Overseeing Making Good of
Defects during Defects Liability Period”, “Overseeing Progress Payment” and “Attending
Site Meetings”.
The completion of works comprised within a contract is important as not only it has a
direct bearing on the question of whether the employer can levy liquidated damages on the
contractor, but it also usually marks the transfer of certain risks or the crystallization of
certain rights between the contractor and the employer inter-se (Kheng, 2003). A study by
Yu, Yu and Jinghua (2006, para. 1) explained that one of the most important steps in the
administration of a construction project is the granting of formal acceptance upon the project's
completion. It defines “project owner’s acceptance” as the project owner's acceptance is
granted if all parties are satisfied with the work carried out by the contractor(s), subject to
regulatory supervision by the state and local government. The inability of contractor to
deliver a satisfactory product would have financial (and reputational) consequences to them
especially when strictly enforceable liquidated damages need to be written into the
construction contract. An example of the “liquidated damages” enforcement is in Clause 22
of the Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia (The Malaysian Architect Association) PAM Standard
Form of Contract (Pertubuhan_Akitek_Malaysia, 1998). Rebecca Thatcher (2001, p. 30)
highlighted that the owner cannot be expected to keep an open check book project alive for
the contractors' convenience. The contractors need to take some risk, especially for something
they have control over and the owner does not.
8.4.2 Critical Owner Satisfaction Factors
This thesis had revealed that the owner satisfaction for detached houses in Malaysia is
represented by three components that contain twelve indicators (Figure 8.1). The first
component in the owner satisfaction is in terms of “Spatial Design”. There are six indicators
in this component namely “The Numbers of Bedroom”, “The Size of the Living Room”, “The
Size of the Master Bedroom”, “The Build Area of the House”, “The Size of the Kitchen” and
“The Overall Design of the House”. These are the most crucial aspects of the design of
detached houses that has a direct effect on the owner’s satisfaction on the development. The
intricate designs of its internal space are typical as owner-occupied housing tends to be of
higher quality. These design requirements would likely satisfy residents with higher income
as they could afford to live in better dwellings (Dekker et al., 2011, p. 494).
Chapter 8: Discussion
171
The second component for owner satisfaction is the “Project Implementation”. There
are three indicators related to this component namely “The Overall Quality of the House
Compared to its Specifications”, “The Delivery of the Project (Time)” and “The Quality of
the Construction Materials Used”. It is clear that time and quality are being given the utmost
priority for the implementation of detached housing developments while the cost of the
development is not. This is because of the nature of detached houses which is considered as
the peak of housing ladder and usually built by those who earn above the median income of
its surrounding communities (NCLT, 2009, p. 2). Therefore, an owner who decides to build a
detached house is most likely would have the funding to build it.
The third component for owner satisfaction is the “Building Services”. There are also
three indicators related with this component. They are “Electrical Supply”, “Water Supply”
and “Air Ventilation”. In Figure 8.1, the “Electrical Supply” and “Water Supply” indicators
were correlated due to their similarity. This is true as their correlation produced a high value
of 0.71. A building without proper services is an unliveable building. Therefore, a detached
house needs to be equipped with at least the basic of amenities namely the electrical and
water supply as the public “mass housing” would have them (Berkoz et al., 2008, p. 168;
Mohit, Ibrahim & Rashid, 2009, p. 5). The design of the house must also take into
consideration the natural airflow going through the building. Proper design of window and
other openings must be well thought of to avoid glaring, design and security issues.
8.4.3 Guideline for Successful Development of Detached Houses in Malaysia Visual
Representation
From the findings from this thesis in the final structural model (Figure 8.1) and the
extensive explanations of its components (Section 8.2, Section 8.4.1 and Section 8.4.2), a
guideline for successful detached housing development in Malaysia is justified. The guideline
is represented in a simpler terms to make it easier for common people to understand the
findings of this research (Figure 8.2).
Chapter 8: Discussion
172
Figure 8.2: The guideline for a successful detached housing development in Malaysia.
Master bedroom,
bedroom, living
room, kitchen, build
area, design, quality,
time, materials,
electric, water,
ventilation
Functional
requirements
Revenue and
profits
Competent
project
manager
Quality
according
contract
Good
performance of
cons. & cont.
Realistic
schedule
Technical
specifications
Owner
satisfaction
Effective
monitoring or
control
Failure of design or
design changes Manpower or
material shortage
Contractor
delays
Financial
projection
Planning
permissions
Building
regulations
Site
condition
Contractor
selection
Competitor’s
interest
Oversee
progress
payment
Monitor
making
good
defects
during
Defects
Liability
Period
Monitor
progress
of works
Negotiate with
contractor Select
contractor
Attend site
meetings
Determine project
specifications
Assist in
project
cost
estimation
Planning internal and
external design
CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT
SUCCESS FACTORS
CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT
BARRIERS
CRITICAL OWNER
PARTICIPATION FACTORS
CRITICAL OWNER
SATISFACTION FACTORS
Good
communication
Reputation
Chapter 8: Discussion
173
The following guidelines were ranked in accordance to the impact they would have on a
detached housing development. They were derived based on the findings of this research
(refer Figure 8.1) which is then represented in Figure 8.2. In developing a detached house, the
owner needs to participate during project planning stage, project contracting stage and project
completion stage. Specifically, the owner needs to be involved in these following activities:
1. To negotiate terms with the contractor;
2. To decide on the selection of contractor;
3. To monitor the progress of works;
4. To provide input for internal and external design;
5. To oversee the process of progress payment;
6. To assist in determining development specification;
7. To attend the site meetings;
8. To assist in the development cost estimation;
9. To monitor the repair works during defects liability period.
The owner, consultant and contractor need to be aware of the design & site barrier,
market & safety barrier and regulation and procurement barrier. Specifically, the parties need
to acknowledge and overcome the following issues to avoid problems that will impede the
progress of their detached housing development:
1. The compliance towards construction regulations and by-laws;
2. The selection process of the contractor;
3. The approval for planning permission by local authorities;
4. The financial projection of the development;
5. The condition of the construction site;
6. The interest of competition amongst consultants or contractor;
7. The construction delay initiated by the contractor;
8. The failure of the detached house’s design or design changes;
9. The shortage of manpower or building materials.
Chapter 8: Discussion
174
In order to steer the development to success, the owner, consultant and contractor also
need to work in their communication factor, planning & monitoring factors as well as their
reputation factors. In detail, they need to ensure that the following matters were executed
properly in order to promote a successful development of their detached housing:
1. The development had determined its technical specifications;
2. The development fulfills its intended functional requirements;
3. The development created revenue and profits as been planned;
4. The development generated good reputation for stakeholders;
5. The development utilises an effective monitoring or control system;
6. The development utilises a realistic project schedule;
7. The development provides benefits to all stakeholders;
8. The development focuses on the customers’ / clients’ / owners’ satisfaction;
9. The exceptional performance of the consultant or contractor in the development;
10. The development practiced good communication culture;
11. The development maintains its build quality according to contract;
12. The development utilises a good project manager or superintending officer.
The consultant and contractor need to work on diligently on proper spatial design,
timely project implementation and installation of building services for the owner to be
satisfied with the development. They must realise the importance of executing the following
tasks in an approved manner for maximum owner satisfaction thus realising the project’s
success.
1. Adequate space for air ventilation;
2. Good water supply and fixings;
3. Good electrical supply and installation;
4. Quantity of bedrooms according to owner’s requirement;
5. Adequate build area for the house;
6. Adequate size of the family living room;
Chapter 8: Discussion
175
7. Adequate size of the master bedroom;
8. Overall quality of house compared to its specification;
9. Adequate size of the kitchen;
10. Quality of construction materials for the development;
11. Acceptable deliverance of development in terms of time;
12. The overall design of the detached house.
Chapter 9: Conclusion
176
CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION
9.1 INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1 identified the need to investigate the nature of detached housing development
in Malaysia, its success factors as well as the importance of owner participation in such
housing scheme. This initial review led to Chapter 2 which explores the global and Malaysian
detached housing sector particularly in identifying the characteristics of detached housing
development all over the world and how it was implemented in Malaysia. This chapter
formulised the first objective of this research namely to identify critical development success
factors and development barriers of detached housing developments in Malaysia.
Accordingly, Chapter 3 continued the literature review with explaining about the concept of
owner participation and introducing the research variables that was used in this research that
was derived from the literature reviews. This chapter brings to surface the second research
objective namely to determine the significance of owner participation for a successful
detached housing development. The research method is presented in Chapter 4, where a
mixed-method approach was implemented by utilising both the quantitative and qualitative
approaches. This method guides the empirical investigation and analysis of Chapter 5 with
descriptive and factor analysis as well as Chapter 6 with structural equation modelling. Based
on these quantitative analyses, a model was produced. In order to validate and ensure its
reflectiveness, the model was evaluated against the findings of the qualitative approach of
Chapter 7. Through content analysis, the responses of the semi-structured participants were
correlated against the model and improvements were made. The overall findings of this thesis
are discussed in Chapter 8, demonstrating the effect between owner participation towards
development success factors and barriers and how it affects owner satisfaction. This fulfills
the requirement of the third objective of this research which is to propose a guideline for
owner participation for detached housing development in Malaysia. The realisation of how
owner participation affects the success of detached housing development will pave the way
towards further advancements in improving the contractual procedures of detached housing
especially in Malaysia. Accordingly, this research offers a number of contributions to the
body of knowledge and improving the practice of detached housing development.
Chapter 9: Conclusion
177
This concluding chapter presents the contributions and implications of this research as
well as its limitations and directions for future research are discussed.
9.2 IMPROVEMENT OF OWNER PARTICIPATION
This research had identified the significance of owner participation in detached housing
development in Malaysia. In general, detached house owners are required to participate
during critical developmental stages of the development in order to produce a satisfying
outcome. In accordance to Research Objective 2, this research had discovered three critical
detached house development stages that require the attention and participation of detached
house owner namely during project planning, project contracting and project completion.
The first critical stage of owner participation is the project planning stage. The owner
needs to provide proper specific input to the consultant (especially the architect) regarding his
expectation of the cost for the entire development, its detailed specification and general idea
of the internal and external design of the detached house and its compound. The owner must
state clearly about his budget for the development. This will enable the consultant to prepare
a development plan that would suit the owner’s budget. The owner and consultant also need
to work out a detailed specification based on that budget. This aspect is typically overseen by
many detached house owners which leaves them vulnerable to manipulations and
dissatisfaction. Another important aspect that is unique to detached houses is the ability of its
owner to apply customised design for the house. This is validated by the model itself when
the design themed indicators appear in both owner participation and owner satisfaction
factors. The consultant (especially the architect) needs to collaborate with the owner to come
up with a design that suits the needs and demands of the owner and his budget. This project
planning stage may take a long time to be completed properly but if it’s done properly, it will
pave a “less problematic” way for the development to progress forward.
The second critical stage is the project contracting stage. In this stage, the owner must
make the right choice of selecting the right contractor for the job. This decision may be taken
after recommendations from the consultants or from the owner’s personal contacts or
experiences but it is not recommended for the owner to select a contractor primarily on the
basis of the lowest bid. After the selection, the owner may need to negotiate terms with the
contractor in order to get the best value out of the contractual arrangement. From the
interviews, the negotiations are usually in terms of improving the material specification. In
addition, the owner might have to monitor the progress of the works from time to time. This
Chapter 9: Conclusion
178
can be done based on the consultant’s monthly progress report or by the owner observing the
progress of the works himself.
The third critical stage is the project completion stage. In this stage, the owner may
need to attend a number of important site meetings to ensure that the progress of the works is
according to what had been planned and the completion date is achievable. The owner also
needs to make sure that the payment is according to what have been agreed in the contract
and there are no obstacles for the contractor to receive the full amount of the payment that he
is entitled to. Any delays on the payment to the contractor will definitely affect the progress
and quality of the development. Finally, after the development had been handed over to the
owner, the owner needs to inspect the house for defects or substandard works that may have
been overseen by the contractor. If the defects liability period clause is included in the
contract, the contractor would have to remedy the problems at his own expense until the
owner (and the contract) is satisfied.
Understanding Critical Success Factor (Research Objective 1)
In fulfilling a part of the requirements of Research Objective 1, this research has
identified three aspects in implementing critical success factors for detached housing
development in Malaysia. The first critical success factor is the communication factor.
Communication is the bonding agent that keeps all the parties working together to achieve a
common goal. Every stakeholder must be able to communicate effectively during the entire
course of the development. This includes in the process of specification determination,
functional requirements, determining owner’s satisfaction and overall quality of the
development.
The second critical success factor is the planning and monitoring factor. Every
development project needs to be properly planned and executed. In terms of detached house
developments, it needs effective monitoring and control, realistic schedule, good performance
by suppliers, contractors and consultants as well as a competent project manager or
superintending officer.
The third critical success factor is the reputation factor. The development itself will
reflect the reputation of each and every stakeholder whether the owners, consultants or
contractors. Therefore, this factor again highlights the need for every stakeholder to
communicate effectively in order to make the development a success. This will contribute in
making the development successful and beneficial to every stakeholder in their own way. For
Chapter 9: Conclusion
179
the consultants and contractors, a successful development will generate significant revenue or
profits for them.
Understanding the Barrier
For the second part of Research Objective 1, this research has classified three critical
development barriers that the stakeholders of detached housing development need to be aware
of. The first critical barrier is the design and site barrier. Consultants need to be careful in the
preparation of the house’s design because a failed design or failed design changes (in the
view of the owner) will have tremendous negative consequences to the development. The
delay of the contractor is also a common issue for detached house developments in Malaysia.
One of the main excuses is the shortage of materials where depending on the location of the
development, type or quality of material required, material shortages will directly affect the
overall progress of the development.
The second critical barrier is the market and safety barrier. The economic downturn as
well as issues with the payments and cash flow of the project will have profoundly negative
effect on the progress of the development. Too much competition amongst the contractors for
the project will also affect the development negatively when the bidders will go for the lowest
possible bid just to win the tender or in some cases the bidders will team up to “fix” the price
of the tender. In terms of safety, the construction site is the primary concern where any
mishaps that happen within the site will trigger an investigation which will delay the progress
of the development.
The third critical barrier is the regulation and procurement barrier. The importance to
select the right contractor is highlighted in this development barrier factor which validates the
similar indicator found in the owner participation factor. It is the responsibility of the
consultants to ensure that the development itself comply with state and local authority’s rules
and regulations regarding residential development as well as obtaining planning permission
from the local authority.
Understanding Owner Satisfaction
Deriving from the literature reviews, this research has determined the owner satisfaction
as the primary indicator for the success of detached housing development. Three critical
aspects was identified that will affect the satisfaction of detached housing owners towards the
outcome of the development. The first aspect of owner satisfaction is in terms of spatial
design. Owners are concerned with the overall design of house, the area of house’s space and
Chapter 9: Conclusion
180
the aspect of size, quantity and location of the rooms of the house. These include the master
bedroom, bedrooms, living room and the kitchen area. It is the responsibility of the
consultants (especially the architect) to deliver the best detached house design in accordance
to the owner’s requirements and budget.
The second aspect of owner satisfaction is in terms of project implementation. In
detached housing development, owners are more concerned about the quality and duration of
the development rather than its cost. Therefore, the overall quality of the house needs to
comply or exceed the development’s specification. Specifically, the construction materials
that are used must be in accordance or better than what is specified in the specifications. In
terms of project delivery, owners are specifically concern about the progress of the
development and the achievement of the completion date by the contractor. Therefore, it is
the responsibility of the contractors to deliver the development in accordance to the quality
and time frame specified in the contract.
The third aspect of owner satisfaction is the building services. Detached houses are like
every residential building need at least the basic necessities to make the building livable
namely electrical supply, water supply and adequate ventilation. In the more lavish types of
detached houses, they are also equipped advances services such as wired local area network,
central air conditioning, communication and security system, firefighting systems and others.
Therefore, this aspect requires collaboration of the consultants to provide a proper design of
the services’ specification and the contractor (or specialist sub-contractor) to install them in
accordance to what was designed. A fully functioning services in a detached house will
definitely contribute to the owner’s satisfaction thus indicates a successful detached housing
development.
9.3 CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS
The application of indicators of construction industry development is not simply a data
gathering exercise. It is an integral part of strategic policy development and implementation
towards the improvement of the performance of the industry (Ofori, 2001, p. 48). The
findings drawn from this research provided a number of contributions to the body of
knowledge and practice particularly in the field of detached houses. This section reports on
each of the contributions and how they refer to the findings of existing theories and research
as proposed by Research Objective 3 of this research.
Chapter 9: Conclusion
181
9.3.1 Contributions to Theory and Methods
Development success factors for detached houses
There were numerous literatures establishing critical success factors (CSF) for many
types of construction projects. Sanvido Grobler, Parfitt, Guvenis & Coyle (1992, p. 110)
highlight that there are four CSFs for construction projects namely a well-organised team, a
series of contracts, experience and optimisation of information. Tabish & Jha (2011, p. 809)
had identified ‘awareness of and compliance with rules and regulations’, ‘effective partnering
among project participants’, ‘pre-project planning and clarity in scope’ and ‘external
monitoring and control’ as the CSFs for public construction projects. Kog & Loh (2012, p.
527) lists four CSFs that affects overall performance of construction projects namely in terms
of constructability, adequacy of plans and specifications, project manager competency and
realistic obligations / clear objectives. In the local Malaysian scenario, Yong & Mustaffa
(2012, p. 553) identifies financial capability of the clients, project stakeholders’ factors and
external factors played crucial role in contributing to the success of a construction project.
The multitude of CSF recommendations for the construction industry is not at all surprising.
This is because Toor & Ogunlana (2009, p. 151) had highlighted that the specific implications
of studies on success factors are limited to the countries and cultures where these studies have
been conducted. In addition, the opinions of success differ among the various groups of
clients (Frödell et al., 2008, p. 29). This is one of the major reasons of the limited resources
regarding on the success factors for detached housing developments. This thesis has
contributed in the knowledge of CSF for residential development projects especially in the
terms of detached houses in Malaysia which are the “communication factor”, “planning and
monitoring factor” and the “reputation factor”.
Development barriers for detached houses
In terms of development barriers, numerous literatures mentioned different
development barriers for different types of projects. Generally, attitudinal barriers and
industrial barriers are critical obstacles that limit the client’s influence on the end result of the
construction process (Vennström & Eriksson, 2010, p. 126) Specifically, Hoonakker, Carayon
& Loushine (2010, p. 962) identify four major barriers in the construction industry especially
when it comes to the issue of quality. They are the “nature” of the of the construction process,
the various parties involved in the construction process, the non-standardisation of the
construction products and the bidding process. In terms of detached houses, this research had
identified that “design and site barrier”, “market and safety barrier” and “regulation and
Chapter 9: Conclusion
182
procurement barrier” as the critical development barriers that are directly impacts the
development progress of detached houses especially in Malaysia.
Owner participation for detached housing developments
The main purposes of participation are to get a better end product and to produce a
scheme that would reflect the people’s (or owner’s) wishes (Johnson, 1979, p. 30).
Specifically, the application of inclusion and participation promotes those involved to design
engagement to suit different parameters, to reduce conflict over divergent expectations and to
enhance the benefits of engagement (Quick & Feldman, 2011, p. 286). Even in the more
modern procurement approaches like the design and build where the design-builders take on
much of the design responsibility, they cannot design or construct a project without some
critical owner participation (Sweeney, 2000, p. 68). In a traditionalist approach, owner
participation was constrained during the planning stage where the owner would explain his
expectance from the particular project. However, recent developments have identified that
owner participation is required during the entire stage of the development at a varying degree
depending on the stage of the development (Shapira et al., 1994, p. 177). In conjunction, this
thesis confirms that critical owner participation is required during each development of a
detached house development project critically during “project planning”, “project
contracting” and “project completion” stages.
Detached houses owner satisfaction
Until recently, customer satisfaction is part of the parameters used in measuring the
performance in almost every construction project. It may be stated that customer satisfaction
in a construction project is a multi-dimensional entity (Kärnä et al., 2009, p. 123). Overall, the
effects of house type and neighbourhood condition are important predictors of housing
satisfaction (Baiden, Arku, Luginaah & Asiedu, 2011, p. 36). In terms of design and
execution of residential project, Chohan et al. (2011, p. 477) confirms that the factors do
affect the satisfaction of its residents. In particular, homeowners are being more satisfied than
tenants (Elsinga & Hoekstra, 2005, p. 422). This finding is supported by Diaz-Serrano (2009,
p. 754) who concluded that homeownership is as important as improving the residential
context in determining housing satisfaction. Due to the fact that normally detached house are
resided by its owners, it would provide the owner with the most satisfaction level compared
to all other types of housing scheme. This research had identified the critical aspects that
Chapter 9: Conclusion
183
would affect detached house owner’s satisfaction are in terms of “spatial design”, “project
implementation” and “building services”.
9.3.2 Practical Contributions
This thesis offers a range of practical contributions especially for future detached house
owners, consultants as well as contractors based on the guideline that was formulated in
Section 8.4.3. For detached house owners, they should be aware of the activities that they
must be involved in order to make the development successful and satisfying for them. The
owners must take an active role in project planning where this is the stage the owners must
ensure that the consultants aware of the owner’s allocation for development cost,
specification requirements and house design internally as well as externally. The next critical
stage is the project contracting stage where the owner must select a suitable contractor for the
development as well as negotiating terms with the contractor. The owner must also monitor
the work that is being carried out by the contractor from time to time to ensure that the
standard that had been set are followed by the contractor. The project completion stage is also
crucial where the owner must make an effort to attend the site meetings whenever possible.
The payment for the works must be paid in time and in full. This is to ensure that the progress
is not be hindered by the lack of funds. Lastly the owners must review the repair works by the
contractor (especially during Defects Liability Period) if there are any defects that was found
in the contractor’s workmanship.
The guideline is also useful for the consultants or contractors of detached houses. They
must be aware of the importance of communicating with every stakeholder of the
development, providing proper planning and monitoring methods and maintaining good
reputation during the course of the development. Consultants and contractors must also be
aware of the design and site barriers that may hinder the progress of the development before
they happen. The market and safety barrier must also be monitored and the regulation and
procurement barrier must be properly followed to ensure a smooth progress for the
development.
The development must place the owner satisfaction as its utmost priority. Therefore,
consultants and contractors (even the owners) may need to think carefully in terms of the
house’s spatial design, the project implementation and availability of building services to
provide the owners (even the consultants and contractors) with a great deal of satisfaction
towards the realisation of the owner’s dream detached house.
Chapter 9: Conclusion
184
By having the owners undertaking an active role during critical stages of the
development, not only the quality and delivery of the development improves but also
increases satisfaction to the owners themselves.
9.3.3 Research Benefits
This research is the initial exploratory step in realising a “specialised contractual
arrangement” for detached housing in Malaysia which focuses in maximising owner
participation. Current contractual arrangement in Malaysia either applies typical “Agreement
Form” or PAM (Malaysian Architect Association) Form of Contract. While the usage of the
“Agreement Form” is considered by some interview participant as a generalist approach, the
implementation of PAM Form of Contract was considered by other interview participant as
being “too superfluous” for detached housing projects. It is anticipated that the results of this
research would pave the way in developing a specialised contractual arrangement to cater the
specific need of detached housing development projects in Malaysia.
9.4 LIMITATIONS
Although this research delivered valid conclusions and findings, there are several
limitations that are associated with data collection and analysis.
9.4.1 Limitations Related to Research Scope
Even though this research had provided a holistic view of detached housing
development, it is acknowledge that there could be other factors contributing towards the
success of detached housing development that are not included. There is still a chance that
additional factors exists that merit consideration. Due to the limitation set to the questionnaire
document as well as the limitation of the AMOS program, only 89 related indicators are
included for this research.
This research only includes the development stage of detached housing namely from
inception to completion. It is quite improbable to include the entire life-cycle of the detached
housing development due to the broadness of the topic.
The main focus of this research is on the detached housing scheme. Even though in the
literature reviews there will be mentioning of other types of housing in Malaysia, it is for
comparative purposes.
Chapter 9: Conclusion
185
This survey of this research is prepared for detached houses in Peninsular Malaysia
only (with the exception of Perlis and Putrajaya). It does not include the Borneo states of
Sabah and Sarawak.
Some of the information of a particular project that the interviewees are referring to
may be confidential and cannot be disclosed. Therefore, there could be vital information that
the interviewees does not wish to be included has not been included in this research.
This research is not ethnically driven. Therefore, it had no intention to identify racial
distribution and their purchasing power in terms of acquiring detached houses. This research
views at the issues of detached houses in Malaysia on a much broader scope which includes
detached house development success factors, barriers, critical owner participation
requirements and overall owner satisfaction.
This research also has no intention in identifying the segregation of detached house
ownership between the local Malaysians and foreigners. However, it should be noted that
under the “Malaysia My Second Home” scheme, foreigners are allowed to purchase any type
of residential properties (which may include detached houses) in Malaysia that are priced
RM500,000 (AU$157,173) or above (in most Malaysian states) (MoTM, 2009, para. 3).
Further research is required to identify the ownership pattern of detached houses by
foreigners in the Malaysian residential property sector.
9.4.2 Limitations Related to Research Design
There were a number of limitations related to the questionnaire design and semi-
structured interview guides. This research had followed the research design with purposeful
logic but to an extent. The identification of respondents as well as interview participants was
based on proper sampling methods but it was also based on availability and local proximity.
Therefore, all of the feedbacks were typical Malaysian responses that came from people from
a wide range of backgrounds. However, it needs to be highlighted that majority of the
detached house owners respondents in this research are civil servants and majority of the
detached house contractor/consultant respondents were construction consultants which is well
beyond the control of this research design.
The data was analysed by a single researcher which may introduce researcher bias.
However, the application of computer aided analysis software such as SPSS, AMOS and QSR
NVivo as well as the usage of a standardised interview guide on all the interview participants
minimised the potential biasness.
Chapter 9: Conclusion
186
The reliability of the model provided by this research was established through
theoretical and real-world approaches as the results of the quantitative technique was
validated by the findings of the qualitative reasoning. In addition, this research is more of an
exploratory study towards having a better understanding about the detached housing schemes
in Malaysia. It is recommended that this exploratory study is followed by a separate
confirmatory study which focuses more on hypothesis testing and such.
9.5 DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
This research has explored on one of the most elusive housing market in Malaysia. It
has provided both academic and practical recommendations to relevant parties involved in the
construction industry regarding the matter. It is recommended that this research focuses to
specific issues regarding the detached housing development.
An issue that was highlighted by many interview participants is the inappropriateness of
general lawyers to handle detached housing developments that was funded by Government
loans. Therefore, a micro research could be implemented to investigate the suitability of
general lawyers as paymasters for detached housing projects developed using Government
loans.
Another issue was the lack of information on small contractor performances in
completing detached housing developments is a serious issue highlighted by the interview
participants. Therefore, a study to propose an evaluation website to enable detached house
owners to grade the contractors after a detached housing project have been completed through
the database of Contractor Services Centre (PKK), Ministry of Works, Malaysia is feasible.
A separate study in determining the ownership of detached houses amongst the
Malaysian working class may be feasible in the future. This may establish the actual trend of
detached house ownership especially between government servants (top rank officials and
employees) and the private sector (corporate businesspersons and workers).
It would be a great opportunity to conduct a comparative study between countries
where detached houses is typically not the norm with a country that had already established
its detached housing sector. A comparative research could be initiated on the practice of
detached housing development in Malaysia and other developed countries which are used to
this type of residential development, such as Australia.
Appendix
187
APPENDIX A: RESEARCH ETHICS
APPROVAL
Appendix
188
Appendix
189
APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE FORM
B1. OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE FORM (MALAY LANGUAGE)
Appendix
190
Appendix
191
Appendix
192
Appendix
193
Appendix
194
Appendix
195
Appendix
196
Appendix
197
Appendix
198
Appendix
199
Appendix
200
Appendix
201
B2. CONSULTANT & CONTRACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE FORM (MALAY
LANGUAGE)
Appendix
202
Appendix
203
Appendix
204
Appendix
205
Appendix
206
Appendix
207
Appendix
208
Appendix
209
Appendix
210
Appendix
211
Appendix
212
Appendix
213
APPENDIX C: QUESTIONNAIRE (Q1, 2, 3 &
15) RELIABILITY ANALYSIS
Question 1 consists of 21 items / indicators that represent the development success
factors. From the reliability analysis conducted using SPSS, it had obtained a Cronbach’s
alpha of 0.902.
Appendix Table 1: SPSS reliability analysis result on question 1
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.902 21
Question 2 consists of 22 items / indicators that represent the development barriers.
From the reliability analysis conducted using SPSS, it had obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of
0.872.
Appendix Table 2: SPSS reliability analysis result on question 2
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.872 22
Question 3 consists of 29 items / indicators that represent the owner participation. From
the reliability analysis conducted using SPSS, it had obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.948.
Appendix Table 3: SPSS reliability analysis result on question 3
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.948 29
Appendix
214
Question 15 consists of 17 items / indicators that represent the owner satisfaction. From
the reliability analysis conducted using SPSS, it had obtained a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.940.
Appendix Table 4: SPSS reliability analysis result on question 15
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha N of Items
.940 17
Appendix
215
APPENDIX D: QUESTIONNAIRE
RESPONSES DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
Over one thousand two hundred and fourty eight (1248) hand-distributed, mail and online
questionnaires were distributed with two hundred and nineteen usable responses were
received representing 17.55% in terms of response rate.
D1. SECTION 1: THE SUCCESS FACTORS / BARRIERS OF DETACHED
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
Question 1 consists of 21 development success factors that the respondents need to determine
whether the mentioned development success factor is very important, important, less
important or not important to them for the success of their detached housing development.
The results are shown in Appendix Table 1.
Appendix
216
Valid % Descriptive Number Responded
1. The significance of development success factors to the owners for the success of their detached housing project.
Important (1)
Quite Important
(2)
Less Important
(3)
Not Important
(4) Mean Std. Dev. Total Missing n
a) Complete within time 82.2 15.5 2.3 0.0 1.20 .455 219 0 219
b) Cost according to budget 84.5 13.7 1.8 0.0 1.17 .425 219 0 219
c) Quality according to contract 88.1 11.4 0.5 0.0 1.12 .343 219 0 219
d) Risk containment 62.6 35.2 2.3 0.0 1.40 .535 219 0 219
e) Health and safety measures 74.0 21.0 5.0 0.0 1.31 .562 219 0 219
f) Environmental impact 51.6 42.9 5.5 0.0 1.54 .600 219 0 219
g) Customer / client / owner satisfaction 84.0 15.5 0.5 0.0 1.16 .384 219 0 219
h) Achieving scope / objective 74.4 23.3 2.3 0.0 1.28 .498 219 0 219
i) Technical specifications 77.2 21.9 0.9 0.0 1.24 .447 219 0 219
j) Functional requirements 66.7 30.6 2.7 0.0 1.36 .535 219 0 219
k) Reputation 52.1 39.3 7.3 1.4 1.58 .689 219 0 219
l) Revenue and profits 49.8 41.6 7.3 1.4 1.60 .685 219 0 219
m) Benefit to stakeholder 40.2 45.2 10.5 4.1 1.79 .792 219 0 219
n) Political stability 21.5 36.1 31.1 11.4 2.32 .938 219 0 219
o) Strong / detailed plan kept up to date 59.4 32.9 7.8 0.0 1.48 .638 219 0 219
p) Good communication / feedback 58.0 34.7 6.8 0.5 1.50 .645 219 0 219
q) User / client involvement 52.5 36.5 8.7 2.3 1.61 .743 219 0 219
r) Competant project manager 64.4 31.5 4.1 0.0 1.40 .568 219 0 219
s) Realistic schedule 58.4 38.4 3.2 0.0 1.45 .559 219 0 219
t) Effective monitoring / control 67.1 30.1 2.7 0.0 1.36 .534 219 0 219
u) Good performance by suppliers / contractors / consultants 73.5 24.7 1.8 0.0 1.28 .490 219 0 219
Appendix Table 5: Frequency distribution table for the perception of owners towards the significance of development success factors to the
success of their detached housing development.
Appendix
217
Question 2 consists of 22 development barriers that the respondents need to determine
whether he/she agrees or not on how the mentioned development barrier negatively affecting
their detached housing development. The results are shown in Appendix Table 2
Appendix
218
Valid % Descriptive Number Responded
2. The significance of barriers in negatively affecting the success of detached housing project.
Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2)
Disagree (3)
Strongly Disagree
(4) Mean Std. Dev. Total Missing n
a) Market prediction 24.7 68.9 5.0 1.4 1.83 .570 219 0 219
b) Competitor's interest 10.5 76.7 9.1 3.7 2.06 .584 219 0 219
c) Financial projection 29.7 66.2 4.1 0.5 1.76 .543 219 0 219
d) Site condition 30.1 65.8 3.7 0.5 1.74 .540 219 0 219
e) Consultant's revenue 14.2 77.2 6.8 1.8 1.96 .532 219 0 219
f) Grant uncertainty 33.3 60.3 4.6 1.8 1.75 .625 219 0 219
g) Interest rate vulnerability 18.3 68.5 8.7 4.6 2.00 .674 219 0 219
h) Conversation consents 30.1 53.9 9.6 6.4 1.92 .806 219 0 219
i) Building regulations 37.9 56.2 5.0 0.9 1.69 .609 219 0 219
j) Planning permission 33.8 59.8 3.7 2.7 1.75 .652 219 0 219
k) Design team delay 31.1 59.8 5.5 3.7 1.82 .693 219 0 219
l) Quantity and specification determination 39.7 57.1 1.8 1.4 1.65 .590 219 0 219
m) Contractor selection 39.3 57.1 3.2 0.5 1.65 .566 219 0 219
n) Site delays 44.3 50.7 1.8 3.2 1.64 .679 219 0 219
o) Contractor delays 51.1 42.9 2.3 3.7 1.58 .714 219 0 219
p) Health and safety 21.5 74.0 4.1 0.5 1.84 .498 219 0 219
q) Design failures / changes 39.7 54.3 1.8 4.1 1.70 .703 219 0 219
r) Environment 21.0 75.3 2.3 1.4 1.84 .513 219 0 219
s) Manpower / material shortage 40.2 52.5 3.7 3.7 1.71 .708 219 0 219
t) Building failure 54.8 39.7 1.4 4.1 1.55 .724 219 0 219
u) Warranty 47.0 44.7 3.7 4.6 1.66 .758 219 0 219
v) Legal liability 40.2 57.1 1.8 0.9 1.63 .570 219 0 219
Appendix Table 6: Frequency distribution table for the perception of owners towards the significance of development barriers in negatively
affecting the success of detached housing project.
Appendix
219
D2. SECTION 2: THE INVOLVEMENT OF OWNERS IN THE DETACHED
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
This section contains question 3 which requires the owner to determine the degree of their
involvement according to the 29 listed development activities. The results are shown in
Appendix Table 7.
Appendix
220
Valid % Descriptive Number Responded
3. Owner's degree of participation in detached housing development
Involved (1)
Quite Involved
(2)
Less Involved
(3)
Not Involved
(4) Mean Std. Dev. Total Missing n
a) Assembling development team 59.8 18.7 9.6 12.3 1.75 1.061 219 0 219
b) Formulising the project’s objective 50.2 29.7 13.2 6.8 1.77 .926 219 0 219
c) Setting up the project’s organisational structure 18.7 22.4 36.5 22.4 2.63 1.030 219 0 219
d) Developing the project’s schedule 22.4 33.8 25.1 18.7 2.40 1.033 219 0 219
e) Estimating the project’s cost 50.7 32.0 10.0 7.3 1.74 .914 219 0 219
f) Securing financing commitments 81.3 10.0 5.5 3.2 1.31 .718 219 0 219
g) Acquiring project site 78.1 14.6 1.4 5.9 1.35 .784 219 0 219
h) Planning the structural design of building 46.6 30.1 12.8 10.5 1.87 1.001 219 0 219
i) Planning the internal and external design 52.5 37.0 6.4 4.1 1.62 .783 219 0 219
j) Design compliance with legal requirements 37.4 29.7 19.2 13.7 2.09 1.054 219 0 219
k) Determining the project’s specifications 39.3 36.1 17.4 7.3 1.93 .926 219 0 219
l) Obtaining project approval from authorities 35.6 32.4 14.6 17.4 2.14 1.088 219 0 219
m) Preparation of project quantities and specifications 20.5 35.6 24.7 19.2 2.42 1.022 219 0 219
n) Preparation of tender / contract document 17.4 21.9 27.9 32.9 2.76 1.091 219 0 219
o) Management of tender bidding process 17.8 21.5 32.0 28.8 2.72 1.068 219 0 219
p) Selection of contractor 54.8 26.0 10.0 9.1 1.74 .974 219 0 219
q) Negotiation with contractor 57.1 24.2 8.2 10.5 1.72 1.000 219 0 219
r) Handing over possession of site to the contractor 51.6 24.7 12.8 11.0 1.83 1.029 219 0 219
s) Attending site meetings 26.5 36.5 22.4 14.6 2.25 1.007 219 0 219
t) Monitoring the progress of works 41.1 42.0 9.6 7.3 1.83 .880 219 0 219
u) Monitoring health and safety procedures 17.8 19.2 36.1 26.9 2.72 1.049 219 0 219
v) Overseeing progress payment 48.9 28.8 11.8 10.5 1.84 1.003 219 0 219
w) Issuing variation of works 31.1 37.0 15.1 16.9 2.18 1.054 219 0 219
Appendix
221
x) Practical completion 14.6 15.1 27.4 42.9 2.99 1.081 219 0 219
y) Monitoring extension of time claims 21.9 24.2 25.1 28.8 2.61 1.122 219 0 219
z) Monitoring liquidated and ascertain damages claims 25.6 29.2 17.8 27.4 2.47 1.147 219 0 219
aa) Overseeing making good of defects during Defects Liability Period 37.0 36.1 13.7 13.2 2.03 1.020 219 0 219
ab) Overseeing final account and final certificate preparation 25.6 29.7 22.4 22.4 2.42 1.098 219 0 219
ac) Handing over site to the owner 51.6 28.8 10.0 9.6 1.78 .977 219 0 219
Appendix Table 7: Frequency distribution table for the degree of owner involvement during the development process of their detached
house.
Appendix
222
D3. SECTION 3: DETACHED HOUSE INFORMATION
Section 3 consists of 11 questions that were design to gather detailed information about the
respondents’ detached house.
D3A. Ownership of Property
The first question of Section 3 provided data on the ownership of the surveyed detached
house namely whether the current owner is the first owner of the house or otherwise.
Appendix Figure 1 and Appendix Table 8 illustrates whether the current owner of the
detached house is the first owner or not.
Appendix Figure 1: Valid percentage distribution diagram of the detached house
ownership of the respondents.
Appendix
223
Appendix Table 8: Detail of valid percentage distribution table of the detached house
ownership of the respondents.
ownership_4
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 169 77.2 82.4 82.4
No 36 16.4 17.6 100.0
Total 205 93.6 100.0
Missing System 14 6.4
Total 219 100.0
82.4% of the respondents indicated that the house that they are referring to are owner by the
first owners. This accounted for a strong majority of the participants. The other 17.6% of the
respondents are not the actual first owner of the detached house. The reasons for this are not
available but they are likely to have purchased the detached house from the previous owners.
D3B. Location of Residence
Appendix
224
Appendix Figure 2: Location of residence in percentages
Appendix Table 9: Detail on the location of residence
state_5b
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Kedah 2 .9 1.4 1.4
Pulau Pinang 25 11.4 16.9 18.2
Perak 50 22.8 33.8 52.0
Selangor 38 17.4 25.7 77.7
WP Kuala Lumpur 8 3.7 5.4 83.1
Negeri Sembilan 2 .9 1.4 84.5
Melaka 2 .9 1.4 85.8
Johor 2 .9 1.4 87.2
Kelantan 8 3.7 5.4 92.6
Terengganu 5 2.3 3.4 95.9
Pahang 6 2.7 4.1 100.0
Total 148 67.6 100.0
Missing System 71 32.4
Total 219 100.0
The second question of Section 3 probes into the location of the respondent’s residence.
33.8% of the respondents are located from the state of Perak. This is followed by Selangor
(25.7%) Pulau Pinang (16.9%), Kelantan and Kuala Lumpur (5.4%), Pahang (4.1%),
Terengganu (3.2%), and lastly Kedah, Negeri Sembilan, Melaka and Johor (1.4%).
Appendix
225
D3C. Size of the Detached House Site Area
Appendix Figure 3: The distribution of size of the detached house site area
Appendix Table 10: Detail on the distribution of size of the detached house site area
Area (Sq. Ft.) Freq. Valid % Number Responded
Under 1000 7 4.3 Total Missing n
1001-2000 27 16.5 219 55 164
2001-3000 29 17.7 3001-4000 15 9.1 4001-5000 11 6.7 5001-6000 33 20.1 6001-7000 7 4.3 7001-8000 10 6.1 8001-9000 7 4.3 9001-10000 6 3.7 10001-11000 3 1.8 11001-12000 1 0.6 12001-13000 0 0.0 13001-14000 0 0.0 14001-15000 3 1.8 15001 and
above 5 3.0
4.3
16.5 17.7
9.1
6.7
20.1
4.3
6.1
4.3 3.7
1.8 0.6 0.0 0.0
1.8 3.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
Val
id %
Area (Sq. Ft.)
Appendix
226
Typically the housing site of a detached house is larger than the house itself. By determining
the size of the housing site, the researcher could assume the size and cost of the development.
3 of the most popular land area for detached houses in this questionnaire are the 5001 to 6000
square feet (20.1%), 2001 to 3000 square feet (17.7%) and 1001 to 2000 square feet (16.5%)
area. There are detached houses land areas which are more than 10,000 square feet which can
be considered as outliers.
D3D. Contract Value of Detached House before Project Commenced
Appendix Figure 4: The distribution of contract value of detached house before the
project commenced
Appendix
227
Appendix Table 11: Detail on the distribution of contract value of detached house
before the project commenced
valuebeforenew_7
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid RM1,000,000 and above 28 12.8 16.1 16.1
RM500,000 - RM999,999 17 7.8 9.8 25.9
RM250,000 - RM499,999 28 12.8 16.1 42.0
RM100,000 - RM249,999 92 42.0 52.9 94.8
Less than RM100,000 9 4.1 5.2 100.0
Total 174 79.5 100.0
Missing System 45 20.5
Total 219 100.0
Majority of the detached house development projects in this survey was contracted out
between RM100,000 to RM249,999 (AU$31,440 to AU$78,559) (52.9%). This is followed
by contract values of between RM250,000 to RM499,999 (AU$78,600 to AU$157,199) and
RM1,000,000 (AU$314,400) and above (16.1%), RM500,000 – RM999,999 (AU$ 157,200
to 314,399) (9.8%) and less than RM100,000 (AU$ 314,400) (4.1%).
D3E. Actual Development Cost after Detached House Completion
Appendix
228
Appendix Figure 5: The distribution of actual development cost after detached house
completion
Appendix Table 12: Detail of the distribution of contract value of detached house
before the project commenced
valueafternew_8
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid RM1,000,000 and above 35 16.0 20.1 20.1
RM500,000 - RM999,999 13 5.9 7.5 27.6
RM250,000 - RM499,999 53 24.2 30.5 58.0
RM100,000 - RM249,999 64 29.2 36.8 94.8
Less than RM100,000 9 4.1 5.2 100.0
Total 174 79.5 100.0
Missing System 45 20.5
Total 219 100.0
Majority of the actual development cost for the surveyed detached houses falls in the range of
between RM100,000 to RM249,999 (AU$31,440 to AU$78,559) (36.8%). This is followed
by RM250,000 to RM499,999 (AU$78,600 to AU$157,199) (30.5%), RM1,000,000
(AU$314,400) and above (20.1%), RM500,000 to RM999,999 (AU$157,200 to 314,399)
(7.5%) and less than RM100,000 (AU$314,400) (5.2%).
Appendix
229
D3F. Development Period for Entire Detached House Development
Appendix Figure 6: Distribution of development period for entire detached house
development
Appendix
230
Appendix Table 13: Detail of development period for entire detached house
development
devperiod_9
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid More than 2 years 26 11.9 15.0 15.0
More than 1 1/2 years up to
2 years
53 24.2 30.6 45.7
More than 1 year up to 1 1/2
years
33 15.1 19.1 64.7
More than 6 months up to 1
year
44 20.1 25.4 90.2
Less than or up to 6 months 17 7.8 9.8 100.0
Total 173 79.0 100.0
Missing System 46 21.0
Total 219 100.0
In terms of the duration of detached houses’ development period, 30.6% were completed
between 1 ½ year and 2 years. This was followed by the period of between 6 months up to 1
year (25.4%) and 1 year up to 1 ½ year (19.1%). 15% of the detached houses need more than
2 years to be completed. In the contrary, 9.8% of the detached houses only need less than or
up to 6 months to be completed.
Appendix
231
D3G. Detached House Development Completion
Appendix Figure 7: Distribution of detached house development completion
1.3 0.6
0.0 0.6
1.3 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9
1.3
5.1 5.7 5.7
6.3
4.4
6.3
8.2
5.1
7.6
12.7
15.8
3.8
0.6
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.01
99
0
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
Val
id %
Year Completed (n = 219)
Appendix
232
Appendix Table 14: Detail of detached house development completion
Number Responded
Year Frequency Valid % Total Missing n
1990 2 1.3 219 61 158
1991 1 0.6
1992 0 0.0
1993 1 0.6
1994 2 1.3
1995 3 1.9
1996 3 1.9
1997 3 1.9
1998 3 1.9
1999 2 1.3
2000 8 5.1
2001 9 5.7
2002 9 5.7
2003 10 6.3
2004 7 4.4
2005 10 6.3
2006 13 8.2
2007 8 5.1
2008 12 7.6
2009 20 12.7
2010 25 15.8
2011 6 3.8
2012 1 0.6
Referring to the results of the survey, there seems to be an upscale trend in terms of the
numbers of detached houses that were completed every year. There were more detached
houses that were completed after year 2000 than before it.
Appendix
233
D3F. Time Extension Given for Detached House Development
Appendix Figure 8: Responses for time extension given for detached house
development
Appendix
234
Appendix Table 15: Detail of time extension given for detached house development
extension_11
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 65 29.7 39.2 39.2
No 101 46.1 60.8 100.0
Total 166 75.8 100.0
Missing System 53 24.2
Total 219 100.0
There were only 39.2% of the detached housing owners who provides the contractor with
time extensions.
D3G. Number of Days Given for Time Extension
Appendix Figure 9: Distribution of number of days given for time extension
25.0
30.0
13.3
5.0 5.0
11.7
1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
5.0 3.3
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
30 orless
31 - 60 61- 90 91 -120
121 -150
151-180
180 -210
211 -240
241 -270
271 -300
301 -330
331 -365
Over365
Val
id %
Days for Extension (n = 219)
Appendix
235
Appendix Table 16: Detail of number of days given for time extension
Number Responded
No of Days Freq. Valid % Total Missing n
30 or less 15 25.0 219 159 60
31 - 60 18 30.0 61- 90 8 13.3 91 - 120 3 5.0 121 - 150 3 5.0 151- 180 7 11.7 180 - 210 1 1.7 211 - 240 0 0.0 241 - 270 0 0.0 271 - 300 0 0.0 301 - 330 0 0.0 331 - 365 3 5.0 Over 365 2 3.3
Out of the detached house development that provided time extensions, 25% of them provide
an extra 30 days or less for the contractor to complete their work. Other projects provided
even more time extensions such as 60 days (30%), 180 days (11.7%) and 90 days (8%). There
were 2 respondents who provide the contractor with over a year time extension.
Appendix
236
D3H. Appointed Parties for Detached House Development in Order
Appendix Figure 10: Distribution of appointed parties for detached house development
in order
Appendix Table 17: Detail of appointed parties for detached house development in
order
Parties Appointed (in order)
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
Freq.
Valid % Freq.
Valid % Freq.
Valid % Freq.
Valid % Freq.
Valid %
Architect 131 78.0 11 7.4 2 1.8 0 0.0 0 0.0
Quantity Surveyor 8 4.8 32 21.5 34 30.4 6 7.3 1 4.3
Engineer 0 0.0 56 37.6 35 31.3 9 11.0 0 0.0
Contractor 26 15.5 44 29.5 33 29.5 58 70.7 3 13.0
Others 3 1.8 6 4.0 8 7.1 9 11.0 19 82.6
n 168
149
112
82
23
This question gives an overall view of the professionals that were involved in a detached
housing development project and more importantly at what stage they’re being employed.
Obviously, the architect is the first party to be employed for this kind of project. The quantity
surveyor is more likely to be the second or third party to be employed. This is followed by the
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
Val
id %
Party Appointed (in order)
Architect
QS
Engineer
Contractor
Others
Appendix
237
engineer and contractor who are generally employed after the design and budget of the
project had been finalised by the architect and quantity surveyor. Other parties that were
employed such as interior designer and landscape architects play an important role at the end
of a detached housing development.
Appendix
238
D3I. Design of Detached House
Appendix Table 18: Detail of design of detached house
Numbers Numbers Responded
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Missing (no response) n
Living Room (Guest) 130 42 4 3 6
219 34 185
Living Room (Family) 133 34 2 2 5
219 43 176
Wet Kitchen 165 2 2 5 2
219 43 176
Dry Kitchen 133 1 3 3 2
219 77 142
Bedroom
34 79 48 15 8 1
219 34 185
Bathroom + Toilet 11 31 71 34 21 9 5
1 1 219 35 184
Toilet Only 46 19 10 6 6
1 219 131 88
Study Room 76 4 3 3 3
219 130 89
Powder Room 27 2 3 1 5 1
219 180 39
Prayer Room 46 3 4 1 3
219 162 57
Guest Bedroom 60 3 2 4 4
219 146 73
Laundry Room 57 1 2 1 3
219 155 64
Open Parking Lot 112 33 9 2 4 1
1
219 57 162
Garage 35 5 6 1 1
219 171 48
Swimming Pool 27
3
1
219 188 31
Others 35 6 1
219 177 42
Appendix
239
This question highlights the overall design of the surveyed detached houses in terms of the
numbers of rooms built into them. A typical detached house in Malaysia would have a living
room to receive guest, another living room for the family, a wet kitchen, a dry kitchen,
between 3 to 5 bedrooms and about the same numbers of washroom that is usually attached to
the bedroom and an open parking lot. Extra uncommon features to the detached house would
be study room, prayer room, guest bedroom, laundry room, garage, swimming pool and
storage room (others).
D4. SECTION 4: SATISFACTION LEVEL OF DETACHED HOUSE OWNER
This section contains question 15 which requires the owner to determine their satisfaction
level towards their completed detached house according to the 17 listed criteria. The results
are shown in Appendix Table 19.
Appendix
240
Appendix Table 19: The level of satisfaction towards the detached house
Valid % Descriptive Number Responded
15. The level of satisfaction towards the detached house.
Very Satisfied
(1) Satisfied
(2) Unsatisfied
(3)
Very Unsatisfied
(4) Mean Std. Dev. Total Missing n
a) The overall design of the house 21.0 78.1 0.9 0.0 1.80 .424 219 0 219
b) The internal space of the house 20.5 78.1 1.4 0.0 1.81 .428 219 0 219
c) The build area of the house 24.2 74.9 0.9 0.0 1.77 .445 219 0 219
d) The numbers of bedroom 25.1 74.9 0.0 0.0 1.75 .435 219 0 219
e) The size of the master bedroom 32.4 67.6 0.0 0.0 1.68 .469 219 0 219
f) The size of the master bedroom's bathroom 26.0 73.5 0.0 0.5 1.75 .465 219 0 219
g) The size of the living room 25.1 74.4 0.5 0.0 1.75 .442 219 0 219
h) The size of the kitchen 21.5 76.7 1.8 0.0 1.80 .442 219 0 219
i) The quality of the construction materials used 16.9 81.3 1.4 0.5 1.85 .425 219 0 219
j) Water supply 17.8 81.7 0.5 0.0 1.83 .391 219 0 219
k) Electrical supply 18.3 80.8 0.9 0.0 1.83 .403 219 0 219
l) Air ventilation 19.2 79.9 0.9 0.0 1.82 .410 219 0 219
m) The area of the house compound 23.7 74.0 2.3 0.0 1.79 .464 219 0 219
n) The condition of access road and drains 15.5 83.6 0.9 0.0 1.85 .379 219 0 219
o) The delivery of the project (time) 17.4 76.7 5.0 0.9 1.89 .500 219 0 219
p) The overall quality of the house compared to it's specifications 11.9 86.3 1.4 0.5 1.90 .377 219 0 219
q) The capability of the house to perform its functions 19.6 80.4 0.0 0.0 1.80 .398 219 0 219
Appendix
241
D5. SECTION 5: RESPONDENTS’ INFORMATION (OWNERS ONLY)
Section 5 consists of 6 questions that were design to gather background information about the
owner (respondent) of this survey.
D5A. Respondent’s Age (Owners Only)
Appendix Figure 11: Distribution of respondents’ age (owners only)
Appendix Table 20: Detail of respondents’ age (owners only)
age_16
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 23 1 .9 .9 .9
30 1 .9 .9 1.8
32 2 1.7 1.8 3.5
33 1 .9 .9 4.4
34 1 .9 .9 5.3
Appendix
242
Appendix Table 20: Detail of respondents’ age (owners only) (continued)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
35 3 2.6 2.6 7.9
37 5 4.3 4.4 12.3
38 2 1.7 1.8 14.0
39 3 2.6 2.6 16.7
40 3 2.6 2.6 19.3
41 3 2.6 2.6 21.9
42 5 4.3 4.4 26.3
43 2 1.7 1.8 28.1
44 2 1.7 1.8 29.8
45 6 5.1 5.3 35.1
46 4 3.4 3.5 38.6
47 3 2.6 2.6 41.2
48 7 6.0 6.1 47.4
49 5 4.3 4.4 51.8
50 9 7.7 7.9 59.6
51 8 6.8 7.0 66.7
52 4 3.4 3.5 70.2
53 5 4.3 4.4 74.6
54 3 2.6 2.6 77.2
55 4 3.4 3.5 80.7
56 1 .9 .9 81.6
57 2 1.7 1.8 83.3
58 4 3.4 3.5 86.8
59 1 .9 .9 87.7
60 5 4.3 4.4 92.1
61 1 .9 .9 93.0
62 1 .9 .9 93.9
63 1 .9 .9 94.7
64 2 1.7 1.8 96.5
65 2 1.7 1.8 98.2
68 1 .9 .9 99.1
73 1 .9 .9 100.0
Total 114 97.4 100.0
Missing System 3 2.6
Total 117 100.0
Appendix
243
D5B. Respondent’s Gender (Owners Only)
Appendix Figure 12: The respondents’ gender (owners only)
Appendix Table 21: Detail of the respondents’ gender (owners only)
gender_17
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Male 82 70.1 70.7 70.7
Female 34 29.1 29.3 100.0
Total 116 99.1 100.0
Missing System 1 .9
Total 117 100.0
Appendix
244
D5C. Respondent’s Occupation (Owners Only)
Appendix Figure 13: Distribution of respondents’ occupation (owners only)
Appendix Table 22: Detail of the respondents’ occupation (owners only)
occupation_18
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Others 11 9.4 9.5 9.5
Unemployed 3 2.6 2.6 12.1
Own employment 11 9.4 9.5 21.6
Staff of private agency 17 14.5 14.7 36.2
Staff of semi-government
agency
10 8.5 8.6 44.8
Staff of fully-government
agency
64 54.7 55.2 100.0
Total 116 99.1 100.0
Missing System 1 .9
Total 117 100.0
Appendix
245
D5D. Number of Resident in Detached House (Owners Only)
Appendix Figure 14: Distribution of numbers of resident in the detached house (owners
only)
Appendix Table 23: Detail of numbers of resident in the detached house (owners only)
resident_19
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid More than 9 persons 1 .9 .9 .9
7 to 9 persons 28 23.9 24.1 25.0
4 to 6 persons 71 60.7 61.2 86.2
1 to 3 persons 16 13.7 13.8 100.0
Total 116 99.1 100.0
Missing System 1 .9
Total 117 100.0
Appendix
246
Most of the household of the surveyed detached houses consists of 4 to 6 persons (71%). This
is followed by households of 7 to 9 persons (23.9%), 1 to 3 persons (13.7%) and more than 9
persons (0.9%).
D5E. Monthly Household Income (Owners Only)
Appendix Figure 15: Distribution of monthly household income (owners only)
Appendix
247
Appendix Table 24: Detail of monthly household income (owners only)
income_20
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid RM15,000 and above 7 6.0 6.0 6.0
RM10,000 to RM14,999 23 19.7 19.8 25.9
RM5,000 to RM9,999 49 41.9 42.2 68.1
RM2,000 to RM4,999 31 26.5 26.7 94.8
Less than RM2,000 6 5.1 5.2 100.0
Total 116 99.1 100.0
Missing System 1 .9
Total 117 100.0
Household income of a typical detached house residents normally are between RM5,000 to
RM9,999 (AU$1,572 to AU$3,144) a month (42.2%). This is followed by households of
monthly income of between RM2,000 to RM4,999 (AU$629 to AU$1,572) (26.7%) and
RM10,000 to RM14,999 (AU$3,144 to AU$4,715) (19.8%). There are only 5% to 6% of
households who earn an income of less than RM2,000 (AU$629) a month and RM15,000
(AU$4,715) and above a month who lives in a detached house in this survey.
Appendix
248
D5F. Duration of Residence in Detached House (Since 2001) (Owners Only)
Appendix Figure 16: Distribution of the duration of residence in detached house since
2001 (owners only)
Appendix
249
Appendix Table 25: Detail of the duration of residence in detached house since 2001
(owners only)
duration_21
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid More than 7 years 54 46.2 46.6 46.6
More than 5 years up to 7
years
23 19.7 19.8 66.4
More than 3 years up to 5
years
14 12.0 12.1 78.4
More than 1 year up to 3
years
20 17.1 17.2 95.7
1 year or less 5 4.3 4.3 100.0
Total 116 99.1 100.0
Missing System 1 .9
Total 117 100.0
Based on the year of 2001, 46.6% of the respondents had been living in their detached house
for over than 7 years. This is followed by more than 5 years up to 7 years (19.8%), more than
1 year up to 3 years (17.2%) and more than 3 years up to 5 years (12.1%). Only 4.3% of the
respondents had been living in their relatively new detached houses for one year or less.
Appendix
250
D6. SECTION 5: RESPONDENTS’ INFORMATION (CONSULTANTS /
CONTRACTORS ONLY)
D6A. Respondents’ Age (Consultants / Contractors Only)
Appendix Figure 17: Distribution of respondents’ age (consultant & contractors only)
Appendix Table 26: Detail of respondents’ age (consultant & contractors only)
age_16
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 21 3 2.9 3.5 3.5
22 1 1.0 1.2 4.7
23 2 2.0 2.3 7.0
24 3 2.9 3.5 10.5
25 7 6.9 8.1 18.6
26 15 14.7 17.4 36.0
27 3 2.9 3.5 39.5
29 3 2.9 3.5 43.0
30 4 3.9 4.7 47.7
Appendix
251
Appendix Table 26: Detail of respondents’ age (consultant & contractors only)
(continued)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
31 1 1.0 1.2 48.8
32 1 1.0 1.2 50.0
33 1 1.0 1.2 51.2
34 1 1.0 1.2 52.3
35 3 2.9 3.5 55.8
36 2 2.0 2.3 58.1
37 2 2.0 2.3 60.5
38 4 3.9 4.7 65.1
39 1 1.0 1.2 66.3
42 1 1.0 1.2 67.4
43 2 2.0 2.3 69.8
44 1 1.0 1.2 70.9
45 5 4.9 5.8 76.7
47 1 1.0 1.2 77.9
48 4 3.9 4.7 82.6
49 3 2.9 3.5 86.0
50 5 4.9 5.8 91.9
51 1 1.0 1.2 93.0
52 1 1.0 1.2 94.2
53 1 1.0 1.2 95.3
55 2 2.0 2.3 97.7
58 1 1.0 1.2 98.8
61 1 1.0 1.2 100.0
Total 86 84.3 100.0
Missing System 16 15.7
Total 102 100.0
Appendix
252
D6B. Respondents’ Gender (Consultants / Contractors Only)
Appendix Figure 18: Respondents’ gender (consultants / contractor only)
Appendix Table 27: Detail of respondents’ gender (consultants / contractor only)
gender_17
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Male 61 59.8 70.1 70.1
Female 26 25.5 29.9 100.0
Total 87 85.3 100.0
Missing System 15 14.7
Total 102 100.0
Appendix
253
D6C. Respondents’ Position in Organisation (Consultants / Contractors Only)
Appendix Figure 19: Distribution of respondents’ position in organisation (consultant
& contractor)
Appendix Table 28: Detail of respondents’ position in organisation (consultant &
contractor)
occupation_18
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Others 1 1.0 1.1 1.1
Marketing 1 1.0 1.1 2.3
Technical 14 13.7 16.1 18.4
Management 6 5.9 6.9 25.3
Administration 1 1.0 1.1 26.4
Professional 64 62.7 73.6 100.0
Total 87 85.3 100.0
Missing System 15 14.7
Total 102 100.0
Appendix
254
D6D. Main Business of Organisation (Consultants / Contractors Only)
Appendix Figure 20: Distribution of the main business of organisation (consultants /
contractors only)
Appendix Table 29: Detail of the main business of organisation (consultants /
contractors only)
business_19
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Others 2 2.0 2.3 2.3
Construction Sub-Contractor 1 1.0 1.1 3.4
Construction Developer 4 3.9 4.6 8.0
Construction Contractor 18 17.6 20.7 28.7
Construction Consultant 62 60.8 71.3 100.0
Total 87 85.3 100.0
Missing System 15 14.7
Total 102 100.0
Appendix
255
D6E. Contractor Class for Construction Contractor Respondents (Consultants /
Contractors Only)
Appendix Figure 21: Contractor class for construction contractor respondents
(consultants / contractors only)
Appendix Table 30: Detail of contractor class for construction contractor respondents
(consultants / contractors only)
class_20
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid G1 1 1.0 5.0 5.0
G2 1 1.0 5.0 10.0
G7 18 17.6 90.0 100.0
Total 20 19.6 100.0
Missing System 82 80.4
Total 102 100.0
Appendix
256
D6F. Duration of the Respondents’ Employment (Consultants / Contractors Only)
Appendix Figure 22: The distribution of duration of the consultants/contractors
respondents’ employment.
Appendix Table 31: Detail of the duration of the consultants/contractors respondents’
employment.
operation_21
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 2 years or less 3 2.9 3.5 3.5
More than 2 years up to 5
years
3 2.9 3.5 7.1
More than 5 years up to 10
years
7 6.9 8.2 15.3
More than 10 years up to 25
years
49 48.0 57.6 72.9
More than 25 years 23 22.5 27.1 100.0
Total 85 83.3 100.0
Missing System 17 16.7
Total 102 100.0
Appendix
257
There were 102 consultant & contractor respondents in this survey. 57% of them indicated
that the organisation that employed them had been in operation between 10 to 25 years. This
is followed by organisations that had been in business for more than 10 years (27%). 17
respondents did not answer this question.
D6G. Size of the Respondents’ Organisation (Consultants / Contractors Only)
Appendix Figure 23: Distribution of the size of the consultants/contractors respondents’
organisation.
Appendix
258
Appendix Table 32: Detail of the size of the consultants/contractors respondents’
organisation.
employees_22
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Less than 10 persons 16 15.7 19.0 19.0
10 up to 24 persons 33 32.4 39.3 58.3
25 up to 49 persons 14 13.7 16.7 75.0
50 up to 99 persons 14 13.7 16.7 91.7
100 persons or more 7 6.9 8.3 100.0
Total 84 82.4 100.0
Missing System 18 17.6
Total 102 100.0
39% of the consultant & contractor respondents indicated that the organisation that employed
them had between 10 to 24 permanent staffs in their organisation. This is followed by less
than 10 persons (19%), 25 to 49 persons and 50 to 99 persons (both at 16.7%) and more than
100 persons (8.3%).
Appendix
259
APPENDIX E: FACTOR ANALYSIS REPORT
E1. QUESTION 1: DEVELOPMENT SUCCESS FACTORS
The significance of development success factors to the success of detached housing project
can be described as follows:
1. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with orthagonal rotation (varimax) was
conducted on 21 items of Question 1.
2. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure verified sampling adequacy for the analysis.
KMO=.88 (‘great’ according to Hutcheson & Sofroniou, 1999).
3. All KMO values for individual items were >.70, which is well above the acceptable
limit of .5 (Field, 2009).
4. Bartlett’s test of sphericity x2 (210) = 2017.567, p < .001, indicated that correlation
between items were sufficiently large for PCA.
5. An initial analysis was run to obtain eigenvalues for each component in the data. 5
components had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination
explained 62.888% of the variance.
6. The scree plot was slightly ambiguous and showed inflexion that would justify
retaining component 4.
7. Given a sample of more than 100 (n=219), and the convergence of the scree plot and
Kaiser’s criterion on 5 components, this is the number of components that will be
retained in the final analysis.
8. Appendix Table 33 shows the loading factors after rotation.
Appendix
260
Appendix Table 33: Summary of exploratory factor analysis results for the SPSS
Respondent Questionnaire (Question 1) (N=219)
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4 5
scope_1h .772
spec1_1i .738
function1_1j .684
satisfy_1g .617
involve_1q .587
quality1_1c .537 .432
monitor1_1t .790
schedule1_1s .788
perform_1u .726
projmngr_1r .668
plan_1o .480 .417
profit_1l .766
benefit_1m .737
reputation_1k .414 .633
politic_1n .631
communicate_1p .462 .541
budget_1b .823
time_1a .734
hns1_1e .761
enviro1_1f .685
risk_1d .568
Eigenvalues 7.595 1.598 2.449 1.413 1.151
% of variance 36.164 7.611 6.901 6.729 5.483
Cumulative
variance explained
36.164 43.776 50.677 57.406 62.888
Cronbach’s alpha 0.792 0.824 0.807 0.650 0.669
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 7 iterations.
Appendix
261
Therefore, the items that cluster on the same components suggest that the components
are as follows:
Appendix Table 34: The factor analysis result on development success factors and its
proposed interpretation.
Component Indicators Interpretation
1 h) Achieving scope / objective, i)
Technical specifications, j) Functional
requirements, g) Customer / client / owner
satisfaction, q) User / client involvement,
c) Quality according to contract
COMMUNICATION
FACTORS
2 t) Effective monitoring / control, s)
Realistic schedule, u) Good performance
by suppliers / contractors / consultants, r)
Competent project manager, o) Strong /
detailed plan kept up to date
PLANNING &
MONITORING
FACTORS
3 l) Revenue and profits, m) Benefit to
stakeholder, k) Reputation, n) Political
stability , p) Good communication /
feedback,
REPUTATION
FACTORS
4 b) Cost according to budget, a) Complete
within time
PARAMETER
FACTORS
5 e) Health and safety measures, f)
Environmental impact, d) Risk
containment
HEALTH, SAFETY
& ENVIRONMENT
FACTORS
Communication Factors had high reliability of Cronbach’s alpha=.79 where Planning &
Monitoring Factors had higher reliability Cronbach’s alpha= .82. Risk & Safety Factors and
Reputation Factors had lower reliability Cronbach’s alpha of .81 and .67. Parameter Factors
had the lowest reliability Cronbach’s alpha of .65.
Appendix
262
E2. QUESTION 2: DEVELOPMENT BARRIERS
The significance of barriers in negatively affecting the success of detached housing project.
1. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with orthagonal rotation (varimax) was
conducted on 22 items of Question 2.
2. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure verified sampling adequacy for the analysis.
KMO=.84 (‘great’ according to Hutcheson & Sofroniou, 1999).
3. All KMO values for individual items were >.54, which is well above the acceptable
limit of .5 (Field, 2009).
4. Bartlett’s test of sphericity x2 (231) = 2093.688, p < .001, indicated that correlation
between items were sufficiently large for PCA.
5. An initial analysis was run to obtain eigenvalues for each component in the data. 5
components had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination
explained 60.459% of the variance.
6. The scree plot was slightly ambiguous and showed inflexion that would justify
retaining component 4.
7. Given a sample of more than 100 (n=219), and the convergence of the scree plot and
Kaiser’s criterion on 5 components, this is the number of components that will be
retained in the final analysis.
8. Appendix Table 35 shows the loading factors after rotation.
Appendix
263
Appendix Table 35: Summary of exploratory factor analysis results for the SPSS
Respondent Questionnaire (Question 2) (N=219)
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4 5
bldgfail_2t .834
warranty_2u .817
sitedelay_2n .789
contrdelay_2o .782
shortage_2s .724
designfail_2q .633
enviro2_2r .541
revenue_2e .783
competitor_2b .770
financial_2c .641
prediction_2a .605
site1_2d .561 .439
hns2_2p .413
regulation_2i .793
permission_2j .748
selection_2m .648
liability_2v .458 .495
uncertainty_2f .709
interest_2g .665
consent_2h .572
quantity1_2l .736
designdelay_2k .451 .425 .516
Eigenvalues 6.207 3.283 1.429 1.362 1.020
% of variance 28.213 14.922 6.496 6.189 4.638
Cumulative
variance
explained
28.213 43.136 49.632 55.821 60.459
Cronbach’s alpha 0.887 0.771 0.662 0.643 0.473
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 7 iterations.
Appendix
264
The items that cluster on the same components suggest that the components are as
follows:
Appendix Table 36: The factor analysis result on development barriers and its proposed
interpretation.
Component Indicators Interpretation
1 t) Building failure, u) Warranty, n) Site
delays, o) Contractor delays, s) Manpower /
material shortage, q) Design failures /
changes, r) Environment
DESIGN & SITE
BARRIERS
2 e) Consultant's revenue, b) Competitor's
interest, c) Financial projection, a) Market
prediction, d) Site condition, p) Health and
safety
MARKET &
SAFETY
BARRIERS
3 i) Building regulations, j) Planning
permission, m) Contractor selection, v) Legal
liability
REGULATION
&
PROCUREMENT
BARRIERS
4 f) Grant uncertainty, g) Interest rate
vulnerability, h) Conversation consents
FINANCIAL
BARRIERS
5 l) Quantity and specification determination k)
Design team delay
PLANNING
BARRIERS
Design & Site Barriers had high reliability of Cronbach’s alpha = .88. Regulation &
Procurement Barriers, Market Barriers and Financial Barriers had lower Cronbach’s alpha of
.77, .66 and .64 respectively. Planning Barriers had the lowest reliability of .47.
Appendix
265
E3. QUESTION 3: OWNER PARTICIPATION
Respondent's degree of participation in detached housing development
1. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with orthagonal rotation (varimax) was
conducted on 29 items of Question 3.
2. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure verified sampling adequacy for the analysis.
KMO=.92 (‘great’ according to Hutcheson & Sofroniou, 1999).
3. All KMO values for individual items were >.77, which is well above the acceptable
limit of .5 (Field, 2009).
4. Bartlett’s test of sphericity x2 (406) = 4185.206, p < .001, indicated that correlation
between items were sufficiently large for PCA.
5. An initial analysis was run to obtain eigenvalues for each component in the data. 5
components had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination
explained 65.842% of the variance.
6. The scree plot was slightly ambiguous and does not seem to show noticeable
inflexions.
7. Given a sample of more than 100, and the convergence of the scree plot and Kaiser’s
criterion on 5 components, this is the number of components that will be retained in
the final analysis.
8. Appendix Table 37 shows the loading factors after rotation.
Appendix
266
Appendix Table 37: Summary of exploratory factor analysis results for the SPSS
Respondent Questionnaire (Question 3) (N=219)
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3 4 5
document_3n .784
quantity2_3m .705 .419
bidding_3o .673
structure_3c .622
hns3_3u .575 .451
schedule2_3d .574 .401
approval_3l .567
lad_3z .819
eot_3y .794
dlp_3aa .693
cf_3ab .665
completion_3x .482 .622
payment_3v .552
variation_3w .522
handover2_3ac .458
sitemeet_3s .444
negotiate_3q .809
handover1_3r .782
selection_3p .780
monitor2_3t .532 .439
cost_3e .729
intextdesign_3i .419 .722
strdesign_3h .675
spec2_3k .465 .627
legalreq_3j .490 .568
devteam_3a .718
finance_3f .676
site2_3g .403 .651
objective_3b .406 .592
Eigenvalues 12.044 2.556 1.816 1.471 1.207
% of variance 41.531 8.815 6.261 5.073 4.162
Cumulative
variance explained
41.531 50.346 56.607 61.680 65.842
Cronbach’s alpha 0.891 0.880 0.905 0.867 0.768
Appendix
267
Appendix Table 37: Summary of exploratory factor analysis results for the SPSS
Respondent Questionnaire (Question 3) (N=219) (continued)
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 11 iterations.
Therefore, the items that cluster on the same components suggest that the components
are as follows:
Appendix Table 38: The factor analysis result on owner participation and its proposed
interpretation
Component Indicators Interpretation
1 n) Preparation of tender / contract document,
m) Preparation of project quantities and
specifications, o) Management of tender
bidding process, c) Setting up the project’s
organisational structure, u) Monitoring health
and safety procedures, d) Developing the
project’s schedule, l) Obtaining project
approval from authorities
PROJECT
PROCUREMENT
2 z) Monitoring liquidated and ascertain
damages claims, y) Monitoring extension of
time claims, aa) Overseeing making good of
defects during Defects Liability Period, ab)
Overseeing final account and final certificate
preparation, x) Practical completion, v)
Overseeing progress payment, w) Issuing
variation of works
PROJECT
COMPLETION
3 q) Negotiation with contractor, r) Handing
over possession of site to the contractor, p)
Selection of contractor, t) Monitoring the
progress of works
PROJECT
CONTRACTING
Appendix
268
Appendix Table 38: The factor analysis result on owner participation and its proposed
interpretation (continued)
Component Indicators Interpretation
4 e) Estimating the project’s cost, i) Planning
the internal and external design, h) Planning
the structural design of building, k)
Determining the project’s specifications, j)
Design compliance with legal requirements
PROJECT
PLANNING
5 a) Assembling development team, f) Securing
financing commitments, g) Acquiring project
site, b) Formulising the project’s objective
PROJECT
INITIATION
Project Procurement, Project Completion, Project Contracting, Project Planning and
Project Initiateion had relatively high reliability, Cronbach’s alpha of .89, .88, .91, .87 and
.77 respectively.
Appendix
269
E4. QUESTION 15: OWNER SATISFACTION
Respondent's satisfaction level towards the completed detached house.
1. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with orthagonal rotation (varimax) was
conducted on 17 items of Question 15.
2. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure verified sampling adequacy for the analysis.
KMO=.92 (‘great’ according to Hutcheson & Sofroniou, 1999).
3. All KMO values for individual items were >.75, which is well above the acceptable
limit of .5 (Field, 2009).
4. Bartlett’s test of sphericity x2 (136) = 2622.550, p < .001, indicated that correlation
between items were sufficiently large for PCA.
5. An initial analysis was run to obtain eigenvalues for each component in the data. 3
components had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination
explained 66.93% of the variance.
6. The scree plot was slightly ambiguous and showed inflexion that would justify
retaining component 3.
7. Given a sample of more than 100 (n=219), and the convergence of the scree plot and
Kaiser’s criterion on 3 components, this is the number of components that will be
retained in the final analysis.
8. Appendix Table 39 shows the loading factors after rotation.
Appendix
270
Appendix Table 39: Summary of exploratory factor analysis results for the SPSS
Respondent Questionnaire (Question 3) (N=117)
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3
masterbed_15e .841
bed_15d .814
livingfamily2_15g .793
masterbath_15f .784
buildarea_15c .737
kitchen_15h .704
design_15a .541
compound_15m .402
quality3_15p .845
delivery_15o .780
internal_15b .577 .600
function2_15q .590 .411
quality2_15i .560
electric_15k .884
water_15j .853
ventilation_15l .414 .609
accessdrains_15n .590
Eigenvalues 8.777 1.522 1.079
% of variance 51.630 8.955 6.345
Cumulative variance
explained
51.630 60.585 66.929
Cronbach’s alpha 0.913 0.839 0.866
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
Appendix
271
Therefore, the items that cluster on the same components suggest that the components
are as follows:
Appendix Table 40: The factor analysis result on owner satisfaction and its proposed
interpretation.
Component Indicators Interpretation
1 e) The size of the master bedroom, d) The
numbers of bedroom, g) The size of the
living room, f) The size of the master
bedroom's bathroom, c) The build area of
the house h) The size of the kitchen, a)
The overall design of the house, m) The
area of the house compound
SPATIAL DESIGN
2 p) The overall quality of the house
compared to its specifications, o) The
delivery of the project (time), b) The
internal space of the house, q) The
capability of the house to perform its
functions, i) The quality of the
construction materials used
PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION
3 k) Electrical supply j) Water supply, l) Air
ventilation n) The condition of access road
and drains,
BUILDING
SERVICES
Spatial Design and Project Implementation had high reliability, Cronbach’s alpha of
.91. Project implementation had Cronbach’s alpha of 0.84 and building services had .87.
Appendix
272
APPENDIX F: SEMI-STRUCTURED
INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM
F1. DETACHED HOUSE OWNERS
Appendix
273
Appendix
274
Appendix
275
Appendix
276
F2. CONSULTANTS / CONTRACTORS
Appendix
277
Appendix
278
Appendix
279
Appendix
280
APPENDIX G: SEMI-STRUCTURED
INTERVIEW GUIDE
G1. THEME 1: PLANNING STAGE
Question 1a
Did you work closely with the consultant & contractor during the project planning
stage? Can you explain some of the activities that you were involved in?
Question 1b
Were you informed on the project perimeter during this planning stage? Example:
Project objective, gross floor area, original contract sum, original contract period, project
commencement date and project completion date?
Question 1c
Have you been presented with a project schedule? Did you modify it according to your
requirements?
Question 1d
Were you informed that the project duration, project cost and project quality may
change due to some particular reasons?
G2. THEME 2: DESIGN AND CONTRACTUAL STAGE
Question 2a
Were you involved during the design stage of the house? Did you made modifications
towards the design of the house? Why?
Question 2b
How was the response of the consultant & contractor towards your views / suggestions
about the project? Were all of your suggestions had been considered by them? Can you tell
which of your suggestions was denied?
Appendix
281
Question 2c
Did the consultants / contractor advise you on the effect of design change towards the
compliance of rules and regulations enforced by the local council?
Question 2d
Were you involved in the selection of a suitable contractor? Did you have the final say
in the selection of contractor or did you leave it all to the discretion of the consultant?
Question 2e
Were you informed of the contractual form that shall be utilised for this project? Did
you examine the mentioned form?
G3. THEME 3: CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION STAGE
Question 3a
Was there any site meetings conducted for this project? Were you involved? Did you
express your opinion in the meeting? Can you explain some of the views you’ve stated?
Question 3b
Were you involved in any form of supervision during the course of the project? What
was the purpose of your visit? What were you observing?
Question 3c
Were you aware of the progress of the construction works on site? Did you compare
them with what was planned in the project schedule? If the project is having delay, in your
opinion what was the main cause? What was your action to overcome this delay?
Question 3d
Were you involved in giving authorisation for progress payment? Did you go out and
observe the actual progress on site or depend on the reports by the consultant & contractor?
Question 3e
Were you informed about any problems that are happening on site? Would you
elaborate on some of them? Did you need to take some action or leave it to the consultant &
contractor to solve them?
Appendix
282
Question 3f
Did you found any construction materials or workmanship that were below the standard
that had been determined? What was your action to rectify the problem?
Question 3g
Were you satisfied with the execution of the project as a whole? What should detached
house owners do in order to improve the performance of their project in the future?
Appendix
283
APPENDIX H: SEMI STRUCTURE
INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS’ RESPONSES
H1. QUESTION 1: DEVELOPMENT SUCCESS FACTORS
Appendix Table 41: Semi-Structured Interview Participants’ Responses Related to
Question 1 Indicators
Code (Node) Response
Technical
Specifications
(1i)
Node Count: 7
<Internals\\01MMD> - § 2 references coded [0.86% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.43% Coverage
In the specification we insisted ‘Fast Tec’, a high quality roof insulation. Reference 2 - 0.43% Coverage
We have the specification. Its just in terms of testing we don’t have them. <Internals\\02BK> - § 1 reference coded [0.46% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.46% Coverage
As far as the specification part, most of the detailed part was not by me. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 3 references coded [0.89% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.32% Coverage
the specification didn’t mention the brand and all. It had just said homogeneous tile only. Reference 2 - 0.19% Coverage
in the specificatios he only provided sanitary fittings Reference 3 - 0.38% Coverage
So he told that fittings for not more than RM200 (AU$62.88), this is the list. I looked at the list, the range was awful. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.52% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.52% Coverage
No, no. These technical aspects the client was not familiar with.
Functional
Requirements
<Internals\\01MMD> - § 1 reference coded [0.19% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.19% Coverage
Appendix
284
(1j)
Node Count: 5
All I know is that I want space. <Internals\\02BK> - § 1 reference coded [0.48% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.48% Coverage
the original brickwall was probably little bit hot for Malaysian environment. <Internals\\05NMH> - § 1 reference coded [0.76% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.76% Coverage
If he had designed it this way but then he wanted access from somewhere else. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.64% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.64% Coverage
He wanted the sensor type, that had made the (development) cost quite expensive. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 1 reference coded [0.95% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.95% Coverage
We designed for 20, so it had to be made bigger so that it can have 40 people in the meeting room.
Customer,
Client or
Owner
Satisfaction
(1g)
Node Count: 31
<Internals\\01MMD> - § 5 references coded [1.60% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.47% Coverage
But at the end I was not satisfied with the layout of the house, in terms of space. Reference 2 - 0.35% Coverage
So, we demanded on the spot for the contractor to take it off. Reference 3 - 0.16% Coverage
So we insisted he change it. Reference 4 - 0.40% Coverage
I feel there’s something that was not right, I will not be satisfied. Reference 5 - 0.22% Coverage
in terms of design I was not satisfied. <Internals\\02BK> - § 3 references coded [0.81% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.29% Coverage
I was not quite happy with the overall design Reference 2 - 0.27% Coverage
Appendix
285
but the final quality I was still not happy. Reference 3 - 0.24% Coverage
There were many of the work substandard <Internals\\03PMS> - § 7 references coded [1.83% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.29% Coverage
Even the sanitary fittings I was quite upset because he provided the low standard. Reference 2 - 0.38% Coverage
So he told that fittings for not more than RM200 (AU$62.88), this is the list. I looked at the list, the range was awful. Reference 3 - 0.23% Coverage
Even the sanitary fittings for the main bathroom, I changed them. Reference 4 - 0.42% Coverage
So when he had downgraded the materials to a lower quality we were not satisfied so we changed it back to the original. Reference 5 - 0.23% Coverage
The thing is that we felt that in some aspect we were victimised. Reference 6 - 0.07% Coverage
that I’m satisfied. Reference 7 - 0.21% Coverage
But to me it’s good enough. With that price it’s good enough. <Internals\\05NMH> - § 2 references coded [1.09% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.30% Coverage
No it’s more to his preference. Reference 2 - 0.79% Coverage
Sometimes when he had designed something, he felt that he wanted something else. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 4 references coded [2.71% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.99% Coverage
And then including the sanitary fittings meaning that the sanitary fittings he wanted the high class type like in the hotels.
Appendix
286
Reference 2 - 0.79% Coverage
So most likely the changes to the design of the house was made to his own taste? MEM16: His taste. Reference 3 - 0.39% Coverage
But he know which material that he wanted to use. Reference 4 - 0.54% Coverage
At the end the client was satisfied with the outcome of the project. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 5 references coded [1.52% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.43% Coverage
Normally for this house he would add up bit by bit based on his requirements. Reference 2 - 0.22% Coverage
Okay, a lot of comment on the cabinets. Reference 3 - 0.25% Coverage
She was not happy with the interior designer. Reference 4 - 0.19% Coverage
Because he really had high taste. Reference 5 - 0.43% Coverage
We could see that he was not that satisfied because his demands were plenty. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 5 references coded [3.38% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.72% Coverage
he had specific requirements in terms of finishes, in terms of materials. Reference 2 - 0.79% Coverage
Come out with something which he would like, rather than me posing certain style. Reference 3 - 0.42% Coverage
which first and foremost satisfy the client Reference 4 - 0.53% Coverage
So I do incorporate whatever the client’s requirements. Reference 5 - 0.92% Coverage
Appendix
287
Personally I wasn’t happy with the quality of the workmanship. But the client was happy enough.
Quality
According to
Contract (1c)
Node Count: 18
<Internals\\01MMD> - § 6 references coded [2.71% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.43% Coverage
In the specification we insisted ‘Fast Tec’, a high quality roof insulation. Reference 2 - 0.31% Coverage
the contractor had installed a low quality insulation. Reference 3 - 0.60% Coverage
but when we showed them (the specification), when we force to cut-off their payment then they changed it. Reference 4 - 0.48% Coverage
Another thing was the fabric reinforcement. The contractor ordered the cheapest type. Reference 5 - 0.46% Coverage
So far, as long as I had observed he (the contractor) followed the specification. Reference 6 - 0.43% Coverage
A- in terms of material quality. In terms of design B+. So, overall it’s A-. <Internals\\02BK> - § 1 reference coded [0.27% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.27% Coverage
but the final quality I was still not happy. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 5 references coded [1.61% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.32% Coverage
the specification didn’t mention the brand and all. It had just said homogeneous tile only. Reference 2 - 0.29% Coverage
Even the sanitary fittings I was quite upset because he provided the low standard. Reference 3 - 0.24% Coverage
When he had installed them then we saw it was a lower standard type. Reference 4 - 0.42% Coverage
Appendix
288
So when he had downgraded the materials to a lower quality we were not satisfied so we changed it back to the original. Reference 5 - 0.35% Coverage
So when its exposed of course I need a good timber. I had to make sure that it’s finish looks good. <Internals\\04PMH> - § 2 references coded [1.71% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.74% Coverage
This kind of things happens. Usually happens. Especially in terms of finishing materials. Reference 2 - 0.97% Coverage
So when it was too general because finishes have a lot of categories, he (contractor) would use the lowest (quality). <Internals\\06MEM> - § 2 references coded [1.44% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.45% Coverage
so a lot of the finishes he wanted them to be high class. Reference 2 - 0.99% Coverage
And then including the sanitary fittings meaning that the sanitary fittings he wanted the high class type like in the hotels. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 1 reference coded [0.52% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.52% Coverage
It was clear he was not satisfied because we followed contract, consultants follow contract. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 1 reference coded [0.71% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.71% Coverage
he had specific requirements in terms of finishes, in terms of materials.
Effective
Monitoring and
Control (1t)
Node Count: 37
<Internals\\01MMD> - § 6 references coded [2.87% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.70% Coverage
When we appoint this lawyer, he have this standardised form like a standard agreement between the owner and the contractor. Reference 2 - 0.34% Coverage
If the contractor is late, he would have to pay the penalty. Reference 3 - 0.17% Coverage
Appendix
289
The spec was not prepared yet. Reference 4 - 0.71% Coverage
There was no contractual form, just the agreement (form) that was prepared by the lawyer between the contractor and the owner. Reference 5 - 0.60% Coverage
but when we showed them (the specification), when we force to cut-off their payment then they changed it. Reference 6 - 0.35% Coverage
I had observed he (the contractor) followed the specification. <Internals\\02BK> - § 6 references coded [2.38% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.32% Coverage
basically lack of control on the contractor’s side. Reference 2 - 0.32% Coverage
there was no clear control on the architect’s side. Reference 3 - 0.24% Coverage
There was no specific contractual form. Reference 4 - 0.49% Coverage
That agreement doesn’t cover the owner to come in as part of the project team. Reference 5 - 0.75% Coverage
Basically if the architect has played their role well, they have taken the control of the design and construction fully. Reference 6 - 0.26% Coverage
Because I have taken control of everybody. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 7 references coded [2.32% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.30% Coverage
But in this context the BQ provided by the architect and lawyer was not that detailed. Reference 2 - 0.46% Coverage
in terms of the progress of the construction I personally recorded it because we almost every day went to the site and took photos Reference 3 - 0.49% Coverage
Appendix
290
The BQ did not state in detail about the materials and what not. Even the working drawing was very... quite general about the specification. Reference 4 - 0.29% Coverage
For the plumbing system we didn’t specify what sort of system in the specification Reference 5 - 0.18% Coverage
So when I’m free I went to see his progress and all. Reference 6 - 0.35% Coverage
Another thing is that we want to see the method of construction. Whether he follows procedure or not. Reference 7 - 0.25% Coverage
So I think that if I don’t monitor these kinds of mistakes will happen. <Internals\\04PMH> - § 8 references coded [4.24% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.51% Coverage
Because these things sometimes I had to monitor his progress. Reference 2 - 0.12% Coverage
None. No form. Reference 3 - 0.42% Coverage
We have to check whether he followed specification. Reference 4 - 0.66% Coverage
Based on whether what was done followed the predetermined specification or not. Reference 5 - 0.59% Coverage
But if he still argues with us, sometimes we have to ask the architect. Reference 6 - 0.71% Coverage
Only that when he (contractor) did not followed the specification, that’s the problem. Reference 7 - 0.62% Coverage
But as I said, its weakness is in the detail. Detail up the specification. Reference 8 - 0.62% Coverage
So it was a mistake on the client’s side too. Because it was not detailed.
Appendix
291
<Internals\\05NMH> - § 1 reference coded [0.73% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.73% Coverage
Even when we had completed the bill of quantities (BQ) there were changes. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 3 references coded [1.37% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.52% Coverage
We don’t want the budget to burst if the atchitect over designed. Reference 2 - 0.67% Coverage
The architect utilised a contract form, if I’m not mistaken at that time we used PAM. Reference 3 - 0.18% Coverage
Enter the site? No, no. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 4 references coded [0.89% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.07% Coverage
He used PAM. Reference 2 - 0.29% Coverage
If there’s a meeting, she (owner's wife) will come. Reference 3 - 0.36% Coverage
he did cared about it and we had to report to him twice a month. Reference 4 - 0.18% Coverage
No. He will go and have a look. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 2 references coded [0.92% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.18% Coverage
It is the PAM form. Reference 2 - 0.74% Coverage
I mean we’d made it clear that the architect is the superintending officer.
Realistic
Schedule (1s)
Node Count: 11
<Internals\\01MMD> - § 3 references coded [0.96% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.36% Coverage
And we knew that the standard for house completion is 8 months. Reference 2 - 0.13% Coverage
Nope. We knew by heart.
Appendix
292
Reference 3 - 0.48% Coverage
Oh, there was none. There was only in terms of the progress percentage of the works. <Internals\\02BK> - § 2 references coded [0.62% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.17% Coverage
There was no clear schedule Reference 2 - 0.46% Coverage
I was trying to impose on the schedule so that they will comply on time. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 2 references coded [0.25% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.12% Coverage
None, there’s no project schedule Reference 2 - 0.13% Coverage
Because there was no working schedule <Internals\\05NMH> - § 1 reference coded [0.46% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.46% Coverage
It (the project) will go along with the client. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.66% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.66% Coverage
Did they just put dates of used something like the gantt chart? MEM14: Just dates. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 1 reference coded [0.25% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.25% Coverage
The architect presented a proper gantt chart. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 1 reference coded [0.39% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.39% Coverage
There was a schedule for implementation.
Good
Performance by
suppliers,
contractors or
<Internals\\01MMD> - § 2 references coded [0.41% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.22% Coverage
So, in my case the contractor was late. Reference 2 - 0.19% Coverage
Appendix
293
consultants (1u)
Node Count: 30
This contractor was not diligent. <Internals\\02BK> - § 14 references coded [6.85% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.37% Coverage
Because they have taken long time just to prepare the plan. Reference 2 - 0.26% Coverage
the proper architect input was not there. Reference 3 - 0.65% Coverage
But then after it was completed I realised there’s a lot (of) technical... not properly designed aspect. Reference 4 - 0.20% Coverage
they didn’t highlight it to me. Reference 5 - 0.62% Coverage
Because if the architect has taken some effort to criticise my design, it would have been different. Reference 6 - 0.61% Coverage
if the architect has taken the initiative to highlight it, I would have given some thought to it. Reference 7 - 0.98% Coverage
it is because of the assumptions probably by the architect that as a quantity surveyor maybe the design aspect is not important for them to highlight to me. Reference 8 - 0.32% Coverage
there was no clear control on the architect’s side. Reference 9 - 0.38% Coverage
but when it was implemented they couldn’t find skilled worker Reference 10 - 0.47% Coverage
Basically this architect was not actually putting on any of their own ideas. Reference 11 - 0.38% Coverage
unfortunately in my case the architect was not fully involved Reference 12 - 0.32% Coverage
but in my case the architect was not fully involved. Reference 13 - 0.58% Coverage
Appendix
294
But in my case because a lot of the decision I know, so the architect have taken easy way out Reference 14 - 0.71% Coverage
Lawyers is not looking into the interest of the owner as such but probably more to the interest of the financier. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 7 references coded [2.14% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.33% Coverage
he only have to add a little bit make-up here and there and then proceed to the working drawing Reference 2 - 0.30% Coverage
roof design he modified a bit because architecturally he said the angle was not right. Reference 3 - 0.23% Coverage
He had added some allocation, and there’s overhang here and there. Reference 4 - 0.24% Coverage
Until the time to choose the finishing I wanted him to do it himself Reference 5 - 0.43% Coverage
But there we plans that we provided and he still made mistakes because he had the wrong idea about the design of the house Reference 6 - 0.27% Coverage
It was all his... his good will when he responds to those kinds of questions. Reference 7 - 0.33% Coverage
Because he will come in and check the house right? So there was a need for the architect there. <Internals\\04PMH> - § 4 references coded [1.91% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.48% Coverage
but even though if we need advice from him, he would help. Reference 2 - 0.48% Coverage
He didn’t follow the drawings, just follow his experience. Reference 3 - 0.23% Coverage
He didn’t follow the design.
Appendix
295
Reference 4 - 0.71% Coverage
Only that when he (contractor) did not followed the specification, that’s the problem. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 2 references coded [1.44% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.85% Coverage
The planning stage took 3 months only. Because the architect had concentrated well for the bungalow design. Reference 2 - 0.59% Coverage
So he really did hand it all over, we had to do it the best that we could. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 1 reference coded [0.21% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.21% Coverage
Because it took 6 months for 4 houses.
Competent
Project
Manager (1r)
Node Count: 1
<Internals\\08AAA> - § 1 reference coded [1.11% Coverage] Reference 1 - 1.11% Coverage
the architect is the superintending officer. So all discussions which affect the design must always be through us.
Benefit to
Stakeholder
(1m)
Node Count:2
<Internals\\02BK> - § 1 reference coded [0.71% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.71% Coverage
the contractor and the architect is probably a bigger player, the owner is put aside like (they’re) not important <Internals\\04PMH> - § 1 reference coded [0.29% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.29% Coverage
those mistakes will cost the owner.
Reputation (1k)
Node Count: 7
<Internals\\01MMD> - § 1 reference coded [0.30% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.30% Coverage
In my case, some of my colleagues recommended me too. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 1 reference coded [0.33% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.33% Coverage
Okay, the selection of contractor was like this. I try to remember. Based on recommendations. <Internals\\05NMH> - § 1 reference coded [0.32% Coverage]
Appendix
296
Reference 1 - 0.32% Coverage
Because this client is very rich. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.36% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.36% Coverage
From what I understand, this client was rich. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 2 references coded [1.24% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.59% Coverage
The biggest (development) was a bungalow (development) of 12 million. That’s 4 bungalows in one land lot. Reference 2 - 0.64% Coverage
Okay, actually the owner was a CEO of (specifics removed). Before that he was the director of (specifics removed). <Internals\\08AAA> - § 1 reference coded [0.52% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.52% Coverage
I’m an architect, in practice for more than 25 years.
Revenue and
Profits (1l)
Node Count: 5
<Internals\\03PMS> - § 3 references coded [0.81% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.15% Coverage
There were certain things that he omitted. Reference 2 - 0.42% Coverage
Because initially I wanted to use this item and this item. But he said that its not possible with the price of RM180,000 (AU$56,592). Reference 3 - 0.25% Coverage
The contractor’s request. Because he wanted to reduce the price right? <Internals\\04PMH> - § 2 references coded [0.87% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.43% Coverage
So it doesn’t mean that I’ll take the lowest price. Reference 2 - 0.44% Coverage
No, he tried to reduce the cost. To gain more profit.
Good
Communication
(1p)
<Internals\\03PMS> - § 1 reference coded [0.24% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.24% Coverage
So stuffs that I could take in, I would use his (architect’s) opinion
Appendix
297
Node Count: 17
<Internals\\04PMH> - § 3 references coded [2.13% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.71% Coverage
Sometimes when I feel the design was not suitable, I discussed it with the architect. Reference 2 - 0.83% Coverage
Because he have a good relation, mutual relationship between the contractor and the lawyer and such. Reference 3 - 0.59% Coverage
But I had only engaged him based on a good relation with the architect. <Internals\\05NMH> - § 1 reference coded [0.18% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.18% Coverage
A lot of comments. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 2 references coded [1.21% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.44% Coverage
We will inform the client the floor area for the project Reference 2 - 0.77% Coverage
We did mentioned it to him. We informed the client and the reasons why the project delayed a bit. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 7 references coded [2.90% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.59% Coverage
There was no contact (for quantity surveyor) with the owner during design stage. But during costing yes. Reference 2 - 0.21% Coverage
He knows. Because he will ask for them Reference 3 - 0.79% Coverage
So these 4 short listed (contractors), A, B, C, D we explained their advantages and disadvantages of each one of them and then he’ll choose. Reference 4 - 0.34% Coverage
Input from the client. Normally on the things he didn’t want. Reference 5 - 0.22% Coverage
Okay, a lot of comment on the cabinets.
Appendix
298
Reference 6 - 0.53% Coverage
When they knew it, we will inform the client. Sometimes the client would know about it first. Reference 7 - 0.22% Coverage
So we informed the client on the issue. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 3 references coded [2.86% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.60% Coverage
I love to interact with the client in terms of what they want. Reference 2 - 1.19% Coverage
Yeah, I mean there’s always been dialogue at every stage of the design and then at during every stage of the construction. Reference 3 - 1.07% Coverage
Whatever he can see there were problems or whatever issues was always been discussed during the site meetings.
Appendix
299
H2. QUESTION 2: DEVELOPMENT BARRIERS
Appendix Table 42: Semi-Structured Interview Participants’ Responses Related to
Question 2 Indicators
Node (code) Responses
Contractor
Delays (2o)
Node Count: 6
<Internals\\01MMD> - § 3 references coded [0.63% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.22% Coverage
So, in my case the contractor was late. Reference 2 - 0.17% Coverage
There was at one time a delay. Reference 3 - 0.24% Coverage
In terms of the execution, it was delayed. <Internals\\02BK> - § 2 references coded [0.83% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.29% Coverage
at the end it’s not really shortening the time. Reference 2 - 0.54% Coverage
But then I was not able to meet the schedule because they have given a lot of excuses. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 1 reference coded [0.43% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.43% Coverage
first one appointed couldn’t finish the job.
Manpower or
Material
Shortage (2s)
Node Count: 4
<Internals\\01MMD> - § 2 references coded [0.69% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.20% Coverage
He said he can’t get the materials. Reference 2 - 0.49% Coverage
From what I heard he had a lot of project in the area. So he went out, and he rotates. <Internals\\02BK> - § 2 references coded [0.67% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.29% Coverage
they couldn’t find skilled worker to deliver it Reference 2 - 0.37% Coverage
Appendix
300
I just asked them to increase the manpower things like that.
Failure of
Design or
Design Changes
(2q)
Node Count: 9
<Internals\\01MMD> - § 1 reference coded [0.22% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.22% Coverage
in terms of design I was not satisfied. <Internals\\02BK> - § 5 references coded [2.71% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.46% Coverage
That was a failure on my part also because I didn’t gave them the freedom. Reference 2 - 0.65% Coverage
But then after it was completed I realised there’s a lot (of) technical... not properly designed aspect. Reference 3 - 0.76% Coverage
Say for example kitchen area was quite small, master bedroom area was very big, master bedroom bathroom also was very big. Reference 4 - 0.32% Coverage
The proportion of the room sizes was inappropriate. Reference 5 - 0.52% Coverage
the kitchen location is not proper because it was quite close to the bathroom area. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.61% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.61% Coverage
Not because of the shortcomings of the architect’s design? MEM17: Oh no, no. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 2 references coded [0.40% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.22% Coverage
3 times we poured, the formwork failed. Reference 2 - 0.18% Coverage
No. I think the design was right
Financial
Projection (2c)
Node Count: 4
<Internals\\01MMD> - § 1 reference coded [0.28% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.28% Coverage
So, all the payments must go through this lawyer. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.52% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.52% Coverage
Appendix
301
We don’t want the budget to burst if the atchitect over designed. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 2 references coded [0.93% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.51% Coverage
Okay, that’s for the preparation of the preliminary estimate? NSL10: Preliminary estimate. Reference 2 - 0.42% Coverage
Okay that would incur cost. He didn’t mind. It costs quite a lot actually.
Site Condition
(2d)
Node Count: 7
<Internals\\02BK> - § 1 reference coded [0.29% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.29% Coverage
Some of the problems on site, yes but not much. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.49% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.49% Coverage
So when it flooded the contractor can’t make site preparation. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 5 references coded [1.59% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.39% Coverage
infrastructure was very difficult. Because the area was full of rock. Reference 2 - 0.36% Coverage
Everything was off because there were too many problems on site. Reference 3 - 0.23% Coverage
So it took a long time to break the rock. Reference 4 - 0.25% Coverage
The earthwork was the main cause (of delay). Reference 5 - 0.36% Coverage
we had lots of these retaining wall because it was on a hillside
Competitor’s
Interest (2b)
Node Count: 8
<Internals\\02BK> - § 2 references coded [0.76% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.57% Coverage
I called for quotation, 3 quotation from the contractors and then I go for the lowest one. Reference 2 - 0.19% Coverage
Not very open. Only selective. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 1 reference coded [0.33% Coverage]
Appendix
302
Reference 1 - 0.33% Coverage
So both of them I asked for quotation. I submit the drawing and then they submit the quotation. <Internals\\04PMH> - § 2 references coded [0.47% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.32% Coverage
Yes. I chose based on their quotation. Reference 2 - 0.15% Coverage
Selective (tender) <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.83% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.83% Coverage
So we selected 7 contractors, 7 contractor bid for the tender and we select (the successful contractor). <Internals\\07NSL> - § 1 reference coded [0.36% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.36% Coverage
Open tender. We made the evaluation and we have the short list. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 1 reference coded [0.93% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.93% Coverage
So all the necessary documentation for approval, for tender was all carried out and implemented.
Planning
Permission (2j)
Node Count: 6
<Internals\\03PMS> - § 3 references coded [0.89% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.34% Coverage
I only need his additional idea and to process the design to get the (planning) permission right? Reference 2 - 0.19% Coverage
For the submission proses we have to have an architect. Reference 3 - 0.36% Coverage
actually I paid the architect mainly to settle the task of submission process (to the local authority). <Internals\\04PMH> - § 2 references coded [0.90% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.58% Coverage
The architect will send it to the local authority for their approval. Reference 2 - 0.32% Coverage
Appendix
303
So he is more on the approval of plans <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.57% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.57% Coverage
Our scope as quantity surveyor does not involve with the local authority
Contractor
Selection (2m)
Node Count: 11
<Internals\\01MMD> - § 1 reference coded [0.36% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.36% Coverage
we chose the contractor based on the houses that were completed. <Internals\\02BK> - § 2 references coded [1.13% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.57% Coverage
Again that was the part that I was fully involved because I have collected the contractors. Reference 2 - 0.56% Coverage
I called for quotation, 3 quotation from the contractors and then I go for the lowest one. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 2 references coded [0.59% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.33% Coverage
Okay, the selection of contractor was like this. I try to remember. Based on recommendations. Reference 2 - 0.26% Coverage
We choose the contractor. Firstly we chose them based on their workmanship. <Internals\\04PMH> - § 2 references coded [0.88% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.25% Coverage
Then we choose the contractor. Reference 2 - 0.63% Coverage
So we choose him based on his previous projects, the offered price and such. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.87% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.87% Coverage
That part the client left it to the consultants, to the architect. Quantity surveyor selected the contractors. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 1 reference coded [0.28% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.28% Coverage
We made the evaluation and we have the short list.
Appendix
304
<Internals\\08AAA> - § 2 references coded [1.20% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.75% Coverage
The selection of the first contractor was selected by… AAA26: by the client. Reference 2 - 0.45% Coverage
So ultimately we have to get a 2nd contractor.
Building
Regulations (2i)
Node Count: 7
<Internals\\02BK> - § 1 reference coded [0.36% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.36% Coverage
There’s no specific mention on the authority requirements <Internals\\03PMS> - § 3 references coded [0.90% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.36% Coverage
So, some of the by-law, some of the regulations those kinds of things were always at the back of my mind Reference 2 - 0.22% Coverage
It did comply. But basically we’re aware of the simpler by-law. Reference 3 - 0.31% Coverage
In the context of my house of course when we need to get the certificate of fitness (CF). <Internals\\04PMH> - § 1 reference coded [0.55% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.55% Coverage
The requirement of the rooms we had to comply with the regulation. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.36% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.36% Coverage
Besides the requirement of the local authority <Internals\\08AAA> - § 1 reference coded [1.00% Coverage] Reference 1 - 1.00% Coverage
It wasn’t difficult to ensure that you know… the design incorporates all the authorities requirements.
Appendix
305
H3. QUESTION 3: OWNER PARTICIPATION
Appendix Table 43: Semi-Structured Interview Participants’ Responses Related to
Question 3 Indicators
Node (code) Responses
Overseeing
Making Good
Defects during
Defects
Liability Period
(3aa)
Node Count: 3
<Internals\\03PMS> - § 3 references coded [0.63% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.08% Coverage
there were minor defects Reference 2 - 0.32% Coverage
I think there were 3 to 4 minor defects. 1 crack near the stairs, second one in the kitchen. Reference 3 - 0.22% Coverage
So the next day he (contractor) came in to do the repair works.
Overseeing
Progress
Payment (3v)
Node Count: 13
<Internals\\01MMD> - § 3 references coded [1.04% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.30% Coverage
Site progress, the Government will pay to the lawyer. Reference 2 - 0.23% Coverage
In that aspect I was not involved at all. Reference 3 - 0.50% Coverage
So the lawyer will pay based on the architect’s instruction and pay it to the contractor. <Internals\\02BK> - § 1 reference coded [0.45% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.45% Coverage
Were you involved in the progress payment to the contractor? BK39: Yes. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 3 references coded [0.82% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.27% Coverage
So the architect assisted in the process. In terms when to claim, when to pay Reference 2 - 0.36% Coverage
Its just during the final payment I could have hold off 10% of the payment, but I didn’t practiced that. Reference 3 - 0.18% Coverage
Appendix
306
Involved in giving the green light to the architect. <Internals\\04PMH> - § 1 reference coded [0.88% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.88% Coverage
Ha, we were involved in the payment. Because he (contractor) needed the architect to confirm his progress. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.62% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.62% Coverage
Passed it to the architect and quantity surveyor. We determine (those things). <Internals\\07NSL> - § 3 references coded [1.13% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.38% Coverage
So he agreed. And the payment he made by issuing cheque on that day. Reference 2 - 0.30% Coverage
But he would check (the claims). He was very thorough. Reference 3 - 0.44% Coverage
We told him if its like this its about 50%. Okay. He will check it one by one. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 1 reference coded [0.54% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.54% Coverage
Our certification for payment is submitted to the client
Attending Site
Meetings (3s)
Node Count: 7
<Internals\\02BK> - § 1 reference coded [0.35% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.35% Coverage
In fact all the site meetings were handled by the owner. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 1 reference coded [0.19% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.19% Coverage
But it was a site meeting. It was just not formalised. <Internals\\04PMH> - § 1 reference coded [0.14% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.14% Coverage
No, not involved. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.18% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.18% Coverage
The client did join in.
Appendix
307
<Internals\\07NSL> - § 1 reference coded [0.43% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.43% Coverage
Okay the site meeting involves the contractor and sometimes the client came. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 2 references coded [1.58% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.52% Coverage
Did the client involved in this meeting? AAA29: Yes. Reference 2 - 1.07% Coverage
Whatever he can see there were problems or whatever issues was always been discussed during the site meetings.
Negotiation
with Contractor
(3q)
Node Count: 9
<Internals\\01MMD> - § 4 references coded [1.57% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.45% Coverage
The house’s estimate with its completed design I negotiated with the contractor. Reference 2 - 0.24% Coverage
Ah, ‘Direct Negotiate’ with the contractor. Reference 3 - 0.27% Coverage
When we agreed with the contractor we will sign. Reference 4 - 0.60% Coverage
Initially I wanted to negotiate with him. Since you were late maybe you have to add on the specification. <Internals\\02BK> - § 1 reference coded [0.32% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.32% Coverage
Did you negotiated with the contractor? BK36: Yes. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 4 references coded [0.95% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.23% Coverage
So we tried to negotiate and at the end of the day we got RM180,000 (AU$56,592). Reference 2 - 0.17% Coverage
I insisted I wanted weatherbond. Okay he agreed. Reference 3 - 0.28% Coverage
Appendix
308
So I’m asking about a discount of RM20,000 (AU$6,288), he quickly gave a discount of RM20,000 (AU$6,288). Reference 4 - 0.26% Coverage
After that we negotiated the price with him and he was quite negotiatable.
Monitor
Progress of
Works (3t)
Node Count: 14
<Internals\\01MMD> - § 2 references coded [0.73% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.61% Coverage
Sometimes when there is progress (on site) we visited it regularly. Sometimes there was no progress at all. Reference 2 - 0.12% Coverage
Yes, I do monitor it. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 2 references coded [0.44% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.26% Coverage
Yes, in terms of the progress of the construction I personally recorded it Reference 2 - 0.18% Coverage
So when I’m free I went to see his progress and all. <Internals\\04PMH> - § 4 references coded [2.45% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.33% Coverage
sometimes I had to monitor his progress. Reference 2 - 0.97% Coverage
So we look at his progress, if it had reached 30% so we have to confirm with him (contractor), was it reached or not? Reference 3 - 0.72% Coverage
So sometimes, even the progress haven’t reached its target he (contractor) had claimed. Reference 4 - 0.42% Coverage
Usually we want to see one thing, progress of work. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 2 references coded [0.66% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.22% Coverage
Work progress? He was aware. Reference 2 - 0.44% Coverage
Appendix
309
he asked the architect. Like “So how is the progress?” <Internals\\07NSL> - § 1 reference coded [0.38% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.38% Coverage
Yes he did cared about it and we had to report to him twice a month. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 3 references coded [1.82% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.65% Coverage
Maybe he came to the site and have an overlook… AAA35: He did some Reference 2 - 0.59% Coverage
Was the client aware of the project’s progress? AAA38: Yes. Reference 3 - 0.57% Coverage
As I said before, he had been to site fairly and regularly.
Contractor
Selection (3p)
Node Count: 10
<Internals\\02BK> - § 2 references coded [1.13% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.57% Coverage
Again that was the part that I was fully involved because I have collected the contractors. Reference 2 - 0.56% Coverage
I called for quotation, 3 quotation from the contractors and then I go for the lowest one. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 2 references coded [0.59% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.33% Coverage
Okay, the selection of contractor was like this. I try to remember. Based on recommendations. Reference 2 - 0.26% Coverage
We choose the contractor. Firstly we chose them based on their workmanship. <Internals\\04PMH> - § 2 references coded [0.88% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.25% Coverage
Then we choose the contractor. Reference 2 - 0.63% Coverage
So we choose him based on his previous projects, the offered price and such. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.88% Coverage]
Appendix
310
Reference 1 - 0.88% Coverage
The architect only proposed. He proposed which contractor was suitable, at the end the client needed to decide. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 1 reference coded [0.79% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.79% Coverage
So these 4 short listed (contractors), A, B, C, D we explained their advantages and disadvantages of each one of them and then he’ll choose. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 2 references coded [1.14% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.75% Coverage
The selection of the first contractor was selected by… AAA26: by the client. Reference 2 - 0.39% Coverage
ultimately it was decided by the client.
Estimating
Project’s Cost
(3e)
Node Count: 13
<Internals\\01MMD> - § 3 references coded [1.09% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.38% Coverage
I appointed an architect to design the house and estimate the cost. Reference 2 - 0.26% Coverage
The estimate I negotiated with the contractor. Reference 3 - 0.45% Coverage
The house’s estimate with its completed design I negotiated with the contractor. <Internals\\05NMH> - § 6 references coded [4.11% Coverage] Reference 1 - 1.14% Coverage
When the architect had defined the area and what not only then we would start to be involved to estimate the project Reference 2 - 0.49% Coverage
Its just as the design goes along and we estimated Reference 3 - 0.50% Coverage
we had to estimate (again) when there were changes. Reference 4 - 1.06% Coverage
The estimate at that time was for all the stages and everytime there were changes we will inform the client.
Appendix
311
Reference 5 - 0.42% Coverage
When we estimated, the price was 3 million. Reference 6 - 0.49% Coverage
Estimate, quite a long time. Around 4 to 6 months. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 3 references coded [0.85% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.55% Coverage
Quantity surveyor will only provide the cost, cost... the estimate, estimate of the initial cost. Reference 2 - 0.18% Coverage
We need to update our estimates. Reference 3 - 0.12% Coverage
Preliminary estimate. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 1 reference coded [0.86% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.86% Coverage
the costing and the estimates were done accordingly as well as the tender documentation.
Determining
Project’s
Specification
(3k)
Node Count: 9
<Internals\\01MMD> - § 4 references coded [1.62% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.39% Coverage
The works had no specification, (the specification are) only with me. Reference 2 - 0.37% Coverage
The only thing that changes if we can change is the specification. Reference 3 - 0.43% Coverage
In the specification we insisted ‘Fast Tec’, a high quality roof insulation. Reference 4 - 0.43% Coverage
We have the specification. Its just in terms of testing we don’t have them. <Internals\\02BK> - § 1 reference coded [0.46% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.46% Coverage
As far as the specification part, most of the detailed part was not by me. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 1 reference coded [0.29% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.29% Coverage
Appendix
312
For the plumbing system we didn’t specify what sort of system in the specification <Internals\\04PMH> - § 2 references coded [1.11% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.41% Coverage
in the form we just gave general (specification). Reference 2 - 0.70% Coverage
Yes, yes. But as I said, its weakness is in the detail. Detail up the specification. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 1 reference coded [0.25% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.25% Coverage
The design didn’t fulfill her specification.
Planning
Internal and
External Design
(3i)
Node Count: 55
<Internals\\01MMD> - § 9 references coded [2.69% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.19% Coverage
My house I designed it on my own. Reference 2 - 0.25% Coverage
I appointed an architect to design the house Reference 3 - 0.44% Coverage
so he made the design and then he would instruct his designed to complete it. Reference 4 - 0.42% Coverage
I did spoke with the architect. I wanted a house with 4 rooms for example. Reference 5 - 0.36% Coverage
I got the design, when it was completed the architect showed me Reference 6 - 0.37% Coverage
I had no comments because I don’t understand about design myself. Reference 7 - 0.22% Coverage
in terms of design I was not satisfied. Reference 8 - 0.32% Coverage
being busy that I didn’t have time to check (the design) Reference 9 - 0.12% Coverage
In terms of design B+. <Internals\\02BK> - § 9 references coded [4.01% Coverage]
Appendix
313
Reference 1 - 0.53% Coverage
at the start the design was done by an architect but input of the design was from me Reference 2 - 0.54% Coverage
Some brief given to the architect and the he has actually developed the design further. Reference 3 - 0.47% Coverage
The design stage was quite fast because I didn’t change much on the design. Reference 4 - 0.14% Coverage
I think about 3 months. Reference 5 - 0.28% Coverage
I was not quite happy with the overall design Reference 6 - 0.65% Coverage
But then after it was completed I realised there’s a lot (of) technical... not properly designed aspect. Reference 7 - 0.49% Coverage
But the perimeter like design objective and client’s needs probably was vague. Reference 8 - 0.43% Coverage
maybe the design aspect is not important for them to highlight to me. Reference 9 - 0.47% Coverage
Basically this architect was not actually putting on any of their own ideas. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 10 references coded [2.58% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.30% Coverage
Actually I worked on the design of the house on my own because I am a designer myself. Reference 2 - 0.23% Coverage
It took me about nearly a year to get the whole idea to complete. Reference 3 - 0.18% Coverage
I prepared it until to the level of mock-up model. Reference 4 - 0.26% Coverage
Appendix
314
because architect I only need his additional idea and to process the design Reference 5 - 0.40% Coverage
the architect received this project with proper design and he only have to add a little bit make-up here and there Reference 6 - 0.22% Coverage
The design process I did it slowly bit by bit for about a year. Reference 7 - 0.30% Coverage
roof design he modified a bit because architecturally he said the angle was not right. Reference 8 - 0.23% Coverage
But in terms of the design I would say maybe 80 to 90% was my idea Reference 9 - 0.18% Coverage
A little bit, minor. The character is still there. Reference 10 - 0.28% Coverage
the design was quite complicated and in terms of workmanship I was quite worried <Internals\\04PMH> - § 3 references coded [2.69% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.76% Coverage
The design actually I provided to him (contractor). I had consulted with my own architect. Reference 2 - 1.22% Coverage
In the initial design stage, the input was from me. But technically, in terms of practicability I think the input from architect was important too. Reference 3 - 0.71% Coverage
Sometimes when I feel the design was not suitable, I discussed it with the architect. <Internals\\05NMH> - § 4 references coded [3.09% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.68% Coverage
And then he would look what... design, especially in terms of design. Reference 2 - 0.81% Coverage
He want to see how the design process was carried out, whather he liked it or not.
Appendix
315
Reference 3 - 0.79% Coverage
Sometimes when he had designed something, he felt that he wanted something else. Reference 4 - 0.82% Coverage
But he (owner) knows, these type of clients knew the effect if he change the design <Internals\\06MEM> - § 2 references coded [1.29% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.52% Coverage
We did work closely with the client especially during design stage Reference 2 - 0.76% Coverage
During the planning there were many changes. Because we wanted to meet the client’s requirement. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 8 references coded [2.92% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.29% Coverage
The design was between the architect and the owner. Reference 2 - 0.03% Coverage
He was Reference 3 - 0.48% Coverage
A lot of additional works like there was no swimming pool, he wanted a swimming pool. Reference 4 - 0.46% Coverage
The basics was there in the design stage but the additions was more for aesthetic Reference 5 - 0.56% Coverage
In the beginning theres no landscape, just grass. Then he wanted water fountain, he wanted a stream. Reference 6 - 0.41% Coverage
but in terms of her design she didn’t want this, she wanted it like that. Reference 7 - 0.25% Coverage
She was not happy with the interior designer. Reference 8 - 0.43% Coverage
Was it because during the design process he didn’t...
Appendix
316
NSL63: Didn’t cared... <Internals\\08AAA> - § 10 references coded [9.97% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.57% Coverage
Okay, most of the design… it’s a family house for 7 people. Reference 2 - 1.92% Coverage
So, this (owner requirements) had been incorporated into the house. The client who is also an engineer, so wanted to have specific things in his house. So this was also considered and designed for. Reference 3 - 0.53% Coverage
Yes, family members as well. The wife and the children. Reference 4 - 0.41% Coverage
So this, the design took that into account Reference 5 - 1.35% Coverage
During our discussions, there were amendments. Even during construction, there were (changes) which is normal for this kind of development. Reference 6 - 1.34% Coverage
So we’ve incorporated some of his specific requirements. Come out with something which he would like, rather than me posing certain style. Reference 7 - 0.95% Coverage
We designed for 20, so it had to be made bigger so that it can have 40 people in the meeting room. Reference 8 - 1.27% Coverage
And I do sometimes advice the advantages and disadvantage of aspect (of) the design to come up with the solution or design solution Reference 9 - 0.55% Coverage
the design incorporates all the authorities requirements. Reference 10 - 1.06% Coverage
there’s always been dialogue at every stage of the design and then at during every stage of the construction.
Appendix
317
H4. QUESTION 15: OWNER SATISFACTION
Appendix Table 44: Semi-Structured Interview Participants’ Responses Related to
Question 15 Indicators
Node (code) Responses
Numbers of
Bedroom (15d)
Node Count: 3
<Internals\\01MMD> - § 2 references coded [0.76% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.52% Coverage
I had only requested I want how many rooms and other things the architect did it on his own. Reference 2 - 0.24% Coverage
I wanted a house with 4 rooms for example. <Internals\\02BK> - § 1 reference coded [0.84% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.84% Coverage
the house actually gross floor area is about 2500 square feet, double-storey, 5 bedrooms, 3 toilets, 1 parking lot / garage with 2 cars
Size of Living
Room (15g)
Node Count: 2
<Internals\\02BK> - § 1 reference coded [0.24% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.24% Coverage
The rest living room and 1 store room. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 1 reference coded [0.17% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.17% Coverage
living room also had cabinets.
Size of Master
Bedroom (15e)
Node Count: 2
<Internals\\02BK> - § 1 reference coded [0.20% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.20% Coverage
master bedroom area was very big <Internals\\07NSL> - § 1 reference coded [0.43% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.43% Coverage
if let’s say it was his room he will ask for the dimension that he requires.
Build Area of
House (15c)
Node Count: 9
<Internals\\02BK> - § 1 reference coded [0.38% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.38% Coverage
the house actually gross floor area is about 2500 square feet <Internals\\03PMS> - § 3 references coded [0.93% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.25% Coverage
Appendix
318
So, we picked a vote and I got the standard lot. Its 60 feet by 80 feet. Reference 2 - 0.33% Coverage
Quite aware because we are in the building industry and I’m an interior designer by prefession. Reference 3 - 0.34% Coverage
I’m satisfied because of the costing … comparing the cost to the size of the house that was built <Internals\\04PMH> - § 1 reference coded [0.58% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.58% Coverage
The area I was aware, but in terms of contract sum and such I was not. <Internals\\05NMH> - § 2 references coded [1.51% Coverage] Reference 1 - 1.14% Coverage
When the architect had defined the area and what not only then we would start to be involved to estimate the project Reference 2 - 0.37% Coverage
The GFA was provided by the architect. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.94% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.94% Coverage
We will inform the client the floor area for the project and the available areas including the finishes to the client. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 1 reference coded [0.43% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.43% Coverage
if let’s say it was his room he will ask for the dimension that he requires.
Size of Kitchen
(15h)
Node Count: 3
<Internals\\02BK> - § 2 references coded [0.73% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.46% Coverage
1 kitchen (where) the size is quite small I think 10 x 12 (feet) I think. Reference 2 - 0.27% Coverage
Say for example kitchen area was quite small <Internals\\07NSL> - § 1 reference coded [0.28% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.28% Coverage
And the kitchen were not small, it was quite big.
Overall Design <Internals\\01MMD> - § 3 references coded [1.09% Coverage]
Appendix
319
of House (15a)
Node Count: 19
Reference 1 - 0.19% Coverage
My house I designed it on my own. Reference 2 - 0.48% Coverage
Of course, I did spoke with the architect. I wanted a house with 4 rooms for example. Reference 3 - 0.42% Coverage
All I knew when it was finished, oh my goodness! That’s how it looks like. <Internals\\02BK> - § 4 references coded [0.91% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.20% Coverage
input of the design was from me Reference 2 - 0.29% Coverage
I was not quite happy with the overall design Reference 3 - 0.19% Coverage
The original design was from me Reference 4 - 0.22% Coverage
Most of my recommendations was taken <Internals\\03PMS> - § 2 references coded [0.47% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.25% Coverage
And then this design I prepared it until to the level of mock-up model. Reference 2 - 0.22% Coverage
The design process I did it slowly bit by bit for about a year. <Internals\\04PMH> - § 2 references coded [0.86% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.43% Coverage
The design actually I provided to him (contractor). Reference 2 - 0.42% Coverage
In the initial design stage, the input was from me. <Internals\\05NMH> - § 4 references coded [2.02% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.38% Coverage
After that he would change the design. Reference 2 - 0.30% Coverage
Appendix
320
No it’s more to his preference. Reference 3 - 0.79% Coverage
Sometimes when he had designed something, he felt that he wanted something else. Reference 4 - 0.55% Coverage
Sometimes from square he wanted it to be a bit circular. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.76% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.76% Coverage
During the planning there were many changes. Because we wanted to meet the client’s requirement. <Internals\\07NSL> - § 2 references coded [0.79% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.29% Coverage
The design was between the architect and the owner. Reference 2 - 0.50% Coverage
For this project, did the owner involved during the design of the house? NSL28: He was. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 1 reference coded [0.79% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.79% Coverage
Come out with something which he would like, rather than me posing certain style.
Overall Quality
Compared to
Specification
(15p)
Node Count: 17
<Internals\\01MMD> - § 6 references coded [2.71% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.43% Coverage
In the specification we insisted ‘Fast Tec’, a high quality roof insulation. Reference 2 - 0.31% Coverage
the contractor had installed a low quality insulation. Reference 3 - 0.60% Coverage
but when we showed them (the specification), when we force to cut-off their payment then they changed it. Reference 4 - 0.48% Coverage
Appendix
321
Another thing was the fabric reinforcement. The contractor ordered the cheapest type. Reference 5 - 0.46% Coverage
So far, as long as I had observed he (the contractor) followed the specification. Reference 6 - 0.43% Coverage
A- in terms of material quality. In terms of design B+. So, overall it’s A-. <Internals\\02BK> - § 1 reference coded [0.27% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.27% Coverage
but the final quality I was still not happy. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 5 references coded [1.61% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.32% Coverage
the specification didn’t mention the brand and all. It had just said homogeneous tile only. Reference 2 - 0.29% Coverage
Even the sanitary fittings I was quite upset because he provided the low standard. Reference 3 - 0.24% Coverage
When he had installed them then we saw it was a lower standard type. Reference 4 - 0.42% Coverage
So when he had downgraded the materials to a lower quality we were not satisfied so we changed it back to the original. Reference 5 - 0.35% Coverage
So when its exposed of course I need a good timber. I had to make sure that it’s finish looks good. <Internals\\04PMH> - § 2 references coded [1.71% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.74% Coverage
This kind of things happens. Usually happens. Especially in terms of finishing materials. Reference 2 - 0.97% Coverage
So when it was too general because finishes have a lot of categories, he (contractor) would use the lowest (quality). <Internals\\06MEM> - § 2 references coded [1.44% Coverage]
Appendix
322
Reference 1 - 0.45% Coverage
so a lot of the finishes he wanted them to be high class. Reference 2 - 0.99% Coverage
And then including the sanitary fittings meaning that the sanitary fittings he wanted the high class type like in the hotels. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 1 reference coded [0.71% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.71% Coverage
he had specific requirements in terms of finishes, in terms of materials.
Delivery of
Project (Time)
(15o)
Node Count: 12
<Internals\\01MMD> - § 2 references coded [0.53% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.24% Coverage
In terms of the execution, it was delayed. Reference 2 - 0.29% Coverage
In terms of execution, from what I saw it was slow. <Internals\\02BK> - § 3 references coded [1.12% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.31% Coverage
A lot of things you have to compromise on the time Reference 2 - 0.67% Coverage
theoretically it should also reduce the construction time because the masonry units is bigger, larger size. Reference 3 - 0.14% Coverage
No. It was not on time. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 2 references coded [0.57% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.18% Coverage
its construction period was 1 year, solid 12 months. Reference 2 - 0.39% Coverage
So when he (contractor) had been able to finish the job by the 27th Ramadhan I believed he had met the target. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 1 reference coded [0.59% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.59% Coverage
Yes there were, but it was not long. Its about 3 months I think, 3 months.
Appendix
323
<Internals\\07NSL> - § 2 references coded [0.59% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.34% Coverage
Delayed because of that. A lot of things that they requested. Reference 2 - 0.25% Coverage
The earthwork was the main cause (of delay). <Internals\\08AAA> - § 2 references coded [0.98% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.69% Coverage
there was a delay because of the non-performance of the 1st contractor. Reference 2 - 0.29% Coverage
So, about 6 to 8 months delay.
Quality of
Construction
Material Used
(15i)
Node Count: 19
<Internals\\01MMD> - § 3 references coded [1.22% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.31% Coverage
the contractor had installed a low quality insulation. Reference 2 - 0.48% Coverage
Another thing was the fabric reinforcement. The contractor ordered the cheapest type. Reference 3 - 0.43% Coverage
A- in terms of material quality. In terms of design B+. So, overall it’s A-. <Internals\\02BK> - § 1 reference coded [0.27% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.27% Coverage
but the final quality I was still not happy. <Internals\\03PMS> - § 7 references coded [2.18% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.32% Coverage
the specification didn’t mention the brand and all. It had just said homogeneous tile only. Reference 2 - 0.29% Coverage
Even the sanitary fittings I was quite upset because he provided the low standard. Reference 3 - 0.19% Coverage
in the specificatios he only provided sanitary fittings
Appendix
324
Reference 4 - 0.38% Coverage
So he told that fittings for not more than RM200 (AU$62.88), this is the list. I looked at the list, the range was awful. Reference 5 - 0.24% Coverage
When he had installed them then we saw it was a lower standard type. Reference 6 - 0.42% Coverage
So when he had downgraded the materials to a lower quality we were not satisfied so we changed it back to the original. Reference 7 - 0.35% Coverage
So when its exposed of course I need a good timber. I had to make sure that it’s finish looks good. <Internals\\04PMH> - § 2 references coded [1.71% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.74% Coverage
This kind of things happens. Usually happens. Especially in terms of finishing materials. Reference 2 - 0.97% Coverage
So when it was too general because finishes have a lot of categories, he (contractor) would use the lowest (quality). <Internals\\05NMH> - § 1 reference coded [0.54% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.54% Coverage
A lot of the changes in terms of cost was the finishes. <Internals\\06MEM> - § 4 references coded [2.08% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.45% Coverage
so a lot of the finishes he wanted them to be high class. Reference 2 - 0.99% Coverage
And then including the sanitary fittings meaning that the sanitary fittings he wanted the high class type like in the hotels. Reference 3 - 0.39% Coverage
But he know which material that he wanted to use. Reference 4 - 0.25% Coverage
Sub-standard. I don’t think so.
Appendix
325
<Internals\\08AAA> - § 1 reference coded [0.72% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.72% Coverage
he had specific requirements in terms of finishes, in terms of materials.
Electrical
Supply (15k)
Node Count: 3
<Internals\\03PMS> - § 2 references coded [0.71% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.25% Coverage
wiring for example. Even the wiring above the ceiling, concealed wiring Reference 2 - 0.46% Coverage
So, if that was under IEEE regulation supposedly the wiring they would know which one was exposed and which one should be concealed. <Internals\\08AAA> - § 1 reference coded [0.82% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.82% Coverage
So he made a lot of comments on the M&E for this project? AAA33: Mainly on the M&E.
Water Supply
(15j)
Node Count: 4
<Internals\\03PMS> - § 4 references coded [0.85% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.29% Coverage
For the plumbing system we didn’t specify what sort of system in the specification Reference 2 - 0.18% Coverage
for example the plumbing, I guess we had overlooked. Reference 3 - 0.26% Coverage
After 2 years there will be leakage everywhere. Those kind of pipes right? Reference 4 - 0.12% Coverage
For example the underground piping
Air Ventilation
(15l)
Node Count: 3
<Internals\\01MMD> - § 2 references coded [0.32% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.14% Coverage
The space is quite small. Reference 2 - 0.18% Coverage
All I know is that I want space. <Internals\\02BK> - § 1 reference coded [0.59% Coverage] Reference 1 - 0.59% Coverage
But overall space requirement I think if the architect had done it it would have been different
Appendix
326
APPENDIX I: SEMI-STRUCTURED
INTERVIEW CODING SUMMARY
I1. OWNER PARTICIPANT
Appendix Table 45: Coding Summary Report of Participant 1 (MMD)
Hierarchical Name Aggregate Coverage Number Of
Coding
References
Number Of
Users Coding
Document Internals\\01MMD
Node
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2c) Financial projection No 0.27 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2m) Contractor selection No 0.36 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2o) Contractor delays No 0.62 % 3 1
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2q) Failure of design or design
changes
No 0.22 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2s) Manpower or material shortage No 0.68 % 2 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1c) Quality according to contract No 2.70 % 6 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1g) Customer or client or owner
satisfaction
No 1.59 % 5 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1i) Technical specifications No 0.85 % 2 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1j) Functional requirements No 0.18 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1k) Reputation No 0.30 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1s) Realistic schedule No 0.96 % 3 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1t) Effective monitoring or control No 2.86 % 6 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1u) Good performance by suppliers or
contractors or consultants
No 0.40 % 2 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3e) Estimating project's cost No 1.09 % 3 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3i) Planning internal and external
design
No 2.68 % 9 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3k) Determining the project's
specification
No 1.62 % 4 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3q) Negotiation with contractor No 1.56 % 4 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3t) Monitor progress of works No 0.73 % 2 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3v) Overseeing progress payment No 1.03 % 3 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15a) Overall design of house No 1.08 % 3 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15d) Numbers of bedroom No 0.76 % 2 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15i) Quality of construction material
used
No 1.21 % 3 1
Appendix
327
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15l) Air ventilation No 0.32 % 2 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15o) Delivery of project (time) No 0.52 % 2 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15p) Overall quality compared to
specification
No 2.70 % 6 1
Appendix
328
Appendix Table 46: Coding Summary Report of Participant 2 (BK)
Hierarchical Name Aggregate Coverage Number Of
Coding
References
Number Of
Users Coding
Internals\\02BK
Node
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2b) Competitor's interest No 0.75 % 2 1
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2d) Site condition No 0.29 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2i) Building regulations No 0.35 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2m) Contractor selection No 1.13 % 2 1
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2o) Contractor delays No 0.83 % 2 1
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2q) Failure of design or design
changes
No 2.71 % 5 1
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2s) Manpower or material shortage No 0.66 % 2 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1c) Quality according to contract No 0.27 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1g) Customer or client or owner
satisfaction
No 0.80 % 3 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1i) Technical specifications No 0.46 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1j) Functional requirements No 0.48 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1m) Benefit to stakeholder No 0.70 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1s) Realistic schedule No 0.62 % 2 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1t) Effective monitoring or control No 2.38 % 6 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1u) Good performance by suppliers or
contractors or consultants
No 6.85 % 14 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3i) Planning internal and external
design
No 4.01 % 9 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3j) Design compliance with legal
requirement
No 0.78 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3k) Determining the project's
specification
No 0.46 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3p) Contractor selection No 1.13 % 2 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3q) Negotiation with contractor No 0.32 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3s) Attending site meetings No 0.34 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3v) Overseeing progress payment No 0.44 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15a) Overall design of house No 0.90 % 4 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15c) Build area of house No 0.38 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15d) Numbers of bedroom No 0.84 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15e) Size of master bedroom No 0.19 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15f) Size of master bathroom No 0.25 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15g) Size of living room No 0.23 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15h) Size of kitchen No 0.73 % 2 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15i) Quality of construction material
used
No 0.27 % 1 1
Appendix
329
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15l) Air ventilation No 0.59 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15o) Delivery of project (time) No 1.12 % 3 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15p) Overall quality compared to
specification
No 0.27 % 1 1
Appendix
330
Appendix Table 47: Coding Summary Report of Participant 3 (PMS)
Hierarchical Name Aggregate Coverage Number Of
Coding
References
Number Of
Users Coding
Internals\\03PMS
Node
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2b) Competitor's interest No 0.33 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2i) Building regulations No 0.89 % 3 1
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2j) Planning permission No 0.89 % 3 1
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2m) Contractor selection No 0.58 % 2 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1c) Quality according to contract No 1.60 % 5 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1g) Customer or client or owner
satisfaction
No 1.82 % 7 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1i) Technical specifications No 0.89 % 3 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1k) Reputation No 0.32 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1l) Revenue and profits No 0.81 % 3 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1p) Good communication No 0.24 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1s) Realistic schedule No 0.24 % 2 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1t) Effective monitoring or control No 2.32 % 7 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1u) Good performance by suppliers or
contractors or consultants
No 2.13 % 7 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3aa) Overseeing making good of
defects during defects liability period
No 0.62 % 3 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3i) Planning internal and external
design
No 2.57 % 10 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3j) Design compliance with legal
requirement
No 0.56 % 2 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3k) Determining the project's
specification
No 0.28 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3p) Contractor selection No 0.58 % 2 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3q) Negotiation with contractor No 0.94 % 4 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3s) Attending site meetings No 0.18 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3t) Monitor progress of works No 0.44 % 2 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3v) Overseeing progress payment No 0.81 % 3 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15a) Overall design of house No 0.46 % 2 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15c) Build area of house No 0.92 % 3 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15i) Quality of construction material
used
No 2.18 % 7 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15j) Water supply No 0.84 % 4 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15k) Electrical supply No 0.71 % 2 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15o) Delivery of project (time) No 0.57 % 2 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15p) Overall quality compared to
specification
No 1.60 % 5 1
Appendix
331
Appendix Table 48: Coding Summary Report of Participant 4 (PMH)
Hierarchical Name Aggregate Coverage Number Of
Coding
References
Number Of
Users Coding
Internals\\04PMH
Node
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2b) Competitor's interest No 0.46 % 2 1
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2i) Building regulations No 0.54 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2j) Planning permission No 0.89 % 2 1
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2m) Contractor selection No 0.88 % 2 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1c) Quality according to contract No 1.71 % 2 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1l) Revenue and profits No 0.87 % 2 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1m) Benefit to stakeholder No 0.29 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1p) Good communication No 2.12 % 3 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1t) Effective monitoring or control No 4.23 % 8 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1u) Good performance by suppliers or
contractors or consultants
No 1.91 % 4 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3i) Planning internal and external
design
No 2.68 % 3 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3j) Design compliance with legal
requirement
No 1.09 % 2 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3k) Determining the project's
specification
No 1.10 % 2 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3p) Contractor selection No 0.88 % 2 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3s) Attending site meetings No 0.14 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3t) Monitor progress of works No 2.45 % 4 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3v) Overseeing progress payment No 0.88 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15a) Overall design of house No 0.85 % 2 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15c) Build area of house No 0.58 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15i) Quality of construction material
used
No 1.71 % 2 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15p) Overall quality compared to
specification
No 1.71 % 2 1
Appendix
332
I2. CONSULTANT & CONTRACTOR PARTICIPANT
Appendix Table 49: Coding Summary Report of Participant 5 (NMH)
Hierarchical Name Aggregate Coverage Number Of
Coding
References
Number Of
Users Coding
Internals\\05NMH
Node
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1g) Customer or client or owner
satisfaction
No 1.09 % 2 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1j) Functional requirements No 0.75 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1k) Reputation No 0.32 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1p) Good communication No 0.17 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1s) Realistic schedule No 0.46 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1t) Effective monitoring or control No 0.72 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3e) Estimating project's cost No 4.10 % 6 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3i) Planning internal and external
design
No 3.08 % 4 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15a) Overall design of house No 2.02 % 4 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15c) Build area of house No 1.51 % 2 1
Appendix
333
Appendix Table 50: Coding Summary Report of Participant 6 (MEM)
Hierarchical Name Aggregate Coverage Number Of
Coding
References
Number Of
Users Coding
Internals\\06MEM
Node
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2b) Competitor's interest No 0.82 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2c) Financial projection No 0.51 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2d) Site condition No 0.49 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2i) Building regulations No 0.36 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2j) Planning permission No 0.57 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2m) Contractor selection No 0.87 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2q) Failure of design or design
changes
No 0.61 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1c) Quality according to contract No 1.44 % 2 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1g) Customer or client or owner
satisfaction
No 2.70 % 4 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1i) Technical specifications No 0.51 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1j) Functional requirements No 0.64 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1k) Reputation No 0.35 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1p) Good communication No 1.21 % 2 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1s) Realistic schedule No 0.65 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1t) Effective monitoring or control No 1.37 % 3 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1u) Good performance by suppliers or
contractors or consultants
No 1.43 % 2 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3i) Planning internal and external
design
No 1.28 % 2 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3j) Design compliance with legal
requirement
No 1.20 % 2 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3p) Contractor selection No 0.88 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3s) Attending site meetings No 0.18 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3t) Monitor progress of works No 0.65 % 2 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3v) Overseeing progress payment No 0.61 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15a) Overall design of house No 0.76 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15c) Build area of house No 0.93 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15i) Quality of construction material
used
No 2.07 % 4 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15o) Delivery of project (time) No 0.58 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15p) Overall quality compared to
specification
No 1.44 % 2 1
Appendix
334
Appendix Table 51: Coding Summary Report of Participant 7 (NSL)
Hierarchical Name Aggregate Coverage Number Of
Coding
References
Number Of
Users Coding
Internals\\07NSL
Node
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2b) Competitor's interest No 0.35 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2c) Financial projection No 0.93 % 2 1
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2d) Site condition No 1.59 % 5 1
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2m) Contractor selection No 0.28 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2q) Failure of design or design
changes
No 0.40 % 2 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1c) Quality according to contract No 0.51 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1g) Customer or client or owner
satisfaction
No 1.52 % 5 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1k) Reputation No 1.23 % 2 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1p) Good communication No 2.90 % 7 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1s) Realistic schedule No 0.25 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1t) Effective monitoring or control No 0.89 % 4 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1u) Good performance by suppliers or
contractors or consultants
No 0.21 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3e) Estimating project's cost No 0.84 % 3 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3i) Planning internal and external
design
No 2.92 % 8 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3k) Determining the project's
specification
No 0.24 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3p) Contractor selection No 0.79 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3s) Attending site meetings No 0.42 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3t) Monitor progress of works No 0.38 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3v) Overseeing progress payment No 1.12 % 3 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15a) Overall design of house No 0.79 % 2 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15c) Build area of house No 0.42 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15e) Size of master bedroom No 0.42 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15g) Size of living room No 0.16 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15h) Size of kitchen No 0.27 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15o) Delivery of project (time) No 0.59 % 2 1
Appendix
335
Appendix Table 52: Coding Summary Report of Participant 8 (AAA)
Hierarchical Name Aggregate Coverage Number Of
Coding
References
Number Of
Users Coding
Internals\\08AAA
Node
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2b) Competitor's interest No 0.93 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2i) Building regulations No 1.00 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2m) Contractor selection No 1.19 % 2 1
Nodes\\Development Barriers\(2o) Contractor delays No 0.42 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1c) Quality according to contract No 0.70 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1g) Customer or client or owner
satisfaction
No 3.38 % 5 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1j) Functional requirements No 0.95 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1k) Reputation No 0.51 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1p) Good communication No 2.85 % 3 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1r) Competent project manager No 1.10 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1s) Realistic schedule No 0.38 % 1 1
Nodes\\Development Factors\(1t) Effective monitoring or control No 0.92 % 2 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3e) Estimating project's cost No 0.85 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3i) Planning internal and external
design
No 9.96 % 10 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3j) Design compliance with legal
requirement
No 2.00 % 2 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3p) Contractor selection No 1.13 % 2 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3s) Attending site meetings No 1.58 % 2 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3t) Monitor progress of works No 1.81 % 3 1
Nodes\\Owner Participation\(3v) Overseeing progress payment No 0.54 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15a) Overall design of house No 0.78 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15i) Quality of construction material
used
No 0.71 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15k) Electrical supply No 0.81 % 1 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15o) Delivery of project (time) No 0.98 % 2 1
Nodes\\Owner Satisfaction\(15p) Overall quality compared to
specification
No 0.70 % 1 1
Appendix
336
REFERENCES
Abd El-Razek, M. E., Bassioni, H. A., & Mobarak, A. M. (2008). Causes of delay in building
construction projects in Egypt. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 134(11), 831-841. Retrieved 7 July 2010, from Engineering Village
database.
Abdul-Aziz, A. R., & Jahn Kassim, P. S. (2011). Objectives, success and failure factors of
housing public-private partnerships in Malaysia. Habitat International, 35(1), 150-
157. Retrieved 10 October 2010, from ScienceDirect database.
Abdul-Rahman, H., Wang, C., Takim, R., & Wong, S. (2011). Project schedule influenced by
financial issues: Evidence in construction industry. Scientific research and essays,
6(1), 205 - 212.
Abdulaziz, S. K. (2000). Using a limited warranty to stop construction defects. Reeves
Journal, 80(3), 17-17. from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global;
ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry; ProQuest Central database.
Acharya, N. K., Lee, Y. D., & Im, H. M. (2006). Conflicting factors in construction projects:
Korean perspective. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management,
13(6), 543 - 666. Retrieved 5 October 2012
Adams, E. (2010). The joys and challenges of semi-structured interviewing. Community
Practitioner, 83(7), 18-21. Retrieved 9/10/2012, from ProQuest Central database.
Agus, M. R. (2002). The role of state and market in the Malaysian housing sector. Journal of
Housing and the Built Environment(17), 49-67. Retrieved 4 January 2010, from
SpringerLink database.
Ahadzie, D. K., Proverbs, D. G., & Olomolaiye, P. O. (2008). Critical success criteria for
mass house building projects in developing countries. International Journal of Project
Management, 26(6), 675-687.
Ahmad, H., Aziz, A. R. A., & Jaafar, M. (2009). Success Criteria for Public Hospital
Construction Project in Malaysia: A Conceptual Framework based on pilot survey.
Paper presented at the Online Publication Management Seminar. Seri Iskandar, Perak.
Retrieved 5 May 2010, from http://www.box.net/shared/57ubq08m2l
Aibinu, A. A., & Al-Lawati, A. M. (2010). Using PLS-SEM technique to model construction
organizations' willingness to participate in e-bidding. Automation in Construction,
19(6), 714-724. Retrieved 7/10/2012
Ainsworth, A. (2006). "Ghost Chasing”: Demystifying Latent Variables and SEM (pp. 32):
University of California.
Appendix
337
Aken, T. V. (1996). De weg naar project succes: Eerder via werkstijl dan instrumenten: De
Tijdstroom.
Akintoye, A. S., & MacLeod, M. J. (1997). Risk analysis and management in construction.
International Journal of Project Management, 15(1), 31-38.
Al-Dosary, A. S., Assaf, S. A., & Aldakhil, A. S. (2009). Effectiveness of the organisational
structure of construction firms in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Learning and
Intellectual Capital, 6(4), 380-401.
Al-Tmeemy, S. M. H. M., Abdul-Rahman, H., & Harun, Z. (2010). Future criteria for success
of building projects in Malaysia. International Journal of Project Management, In
Press, Corrected Proof
Al‐Kharashi, A., & Skitmore, M. (2009). Causes of delays in Saudi Arabian public sector
construction projects. Construction Management and Economics, 27(1), 3-23.
Retrieved 2012/10/04
Alaghbari, W. e., Mohd. Razali, A. K., Salim, A., & Ernawati (2007). The significant factors
causing delay of building construction projects in Malaysia. Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, 14(2), 192-206. from ABI/INFORM
Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global; ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry; ProQuest Central
database.
Ale, B. J. M. (2002). Risk assessment practices in The Netherlands. Safety Science, 40(1-4),
105-126. Retrieved 13 October 2009
Alkhathami, M. M. (2004). Examination of the correlation of critical success and delay
factors in construction projects in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Unpublished
3158743, University of Pittsburgh, United States -- Pennsylvania. Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT) database. Retrieved from
http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/30514
5849?accountid=13380
Amole, D. (2009). Residential satisfaction in students' housing. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 29(1), 76-85. Retrieved 4 October 2012
Andersen, E. S. (2012). Illuminating the role of the project owner. International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business, 5(1), 67 - 85. Retrieved 5/10/2012
Andre, G. R. (2012). Design-Assist: Getting Contractors Involved Early. Legal Insight, 6,
from http://www.klgates.com/files/Publication/055ae3ba-ecb7-43d0-be9b-
412fb235407b/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/e4e0432e-8ae0-4656-824e-
48d6a7619d36/Design-Assist-Getting-Contractors-Involved-Early_091912.pdf
Anonymous (2002). Construction Site Safety. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and
Construction, 7(2), 53-54. Retrieved 5 October 2012
Anonymous (2004). Property Development Firm Expands in Thailand, Bangkok Post
(Thailand).
Appendix
338
Anonymous (2007). Contractors to learn finance [Proceeding]. Contractor, 54(9), 65-65.
from bsh database.
Anonymous (2008, 4 November 2008). Economic Package Unveiled The Star Online.
Retrieved 3 September 2009, from
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/11/4/nation/20081104174045&sec=n
ation
Anonymous (2010a). Millennium Challenge-Account-Tanzania Hands Over Laela-
Sumbawanga Road Site to Contractor. US Fed News Service, Including US State
News, from
http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/50328
2367?accountid=13380, from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global;
ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry; ProQuest Central database.
Anonymous (2011). An Introduction to the Development Process. Retrieved 26 October
2009, from http://www.ct-housing.org/development_process.html
Assaf, S. A., & Al-Hejji, S. (2006). Causes of delay in large construction projects.
International Journal of Project Management, 24(4), 349-357. Retrieved 7 July 2010,
from Engineering Village database.
Baiden, P., Arku, G., Luginaah, I., & Asiedu, A. B. (2011). An assessment of residents'
housing satisfaction and coping in Accra, Ghana. Zeitschrift für
Gesundheitswissenschaften, 19(1), 29-37. Retrieved 5/12/2012, from ProQuest
Central database.
Baloi, D., & Price, A. D. F. (2003). Modelling global risk factors affecting construction cost
performance. International Journal of Project Management, 21(4), 261-269.
Retrieved 10 July 2010
Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and
Individual Differences, 42(5), 815-824. Retrieved 7/10/2012
Barton, J., Plume, J., & Parolin, B. (2005). Public participation in a spatial decision support
system for public housing. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 29(6), 630-
652. Retrieved 1 October 2009
Benros, D., & Duarte, J. P. (2009). An integrated system for providing mass customized
housing. Automation in Construction, 18(3), 310-320.
Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C.-P. (1987). Practical Issues in Structural Modeling. Sociological
Methods & Research, 16(1), 78-117. Retrieved 20/10/2012
Berkoz, L., Turk, Ş. Ş., & Kellekci, Ö. L. (2008). Environmental Quality and User
Satisfaction in Mass Housing Areas: The Case of Istanbul. European Planning
Studies, 17(1), 161-174. Retrieved 2012/10/04
Black, J. (1997). Quality in Development, by Design or Process? London, UK: RTPI.
Appendix
339
Boukendour, S. (2009). Construction Delays: Extensions of Time and Prolongation Claims.
Construction Management and Economics, 27(12), 1266-1267. Retrieved 2012/11/10
Bowen, P. A., Cattel, K. S., Hall, K. A., Edwards, P. J., & Pearl, R. G. (2002). Perceptions of
Time, Cost and Quality Management on Building Projects. The Australian Journal of
Construction Economics and Building, 2(2), 9.
Brewer, G. (2005). Final certificates and adjudication. Contract Journal, 429(6533), 38-38.
from ProQuest Central database.
Brink, P. J. (1987). Editorial: On Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. Western
Journal of Nursing Research, 9(2), 157-159.
Brun, L. C., & Jolley, G. J. (2011). Increasing Stakeholder Participation in Industry Cluster
Identification. Economic Development Quarterly, 25(3), 211-220.
Bryde, D. J., & Robinson, L. (2005). Client versus contractor perspectives on project success
criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 23(8), 622-629.
Bubshait, A. A. (1994). Owner involvement in project quality. International Journal of
Project Management, 12(2), 115-117.
Byggeforskningsinstitut, S., & Forskningsinstitut, A. o. K. (2001). The Danish Housing
Market – Trends in Housing Supply and Housing Preferences (Det danske
boligmarked - udvikling i boligforsyning og boligønsker). from
http://www.sbi.dk/download/pdf/det_danske_boligmarked.pdf
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural Equation Modelling with AMOS. Basic Concepts,
Applications and Programming (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Cannalire, C. (2011). Owners and Contractors: Key Metrics Improve Performance. Chemical
Engineering, 118(2), 46-49. Retrieved 5/10/2012, from ProQuest Central database.
Caplicki, E. V., III, & Guidry, R. A. (2006). Liquidated Damages for Delay in Construction
Contracts. Construction Accounting & Taxation, 16(5), 14-14. from ABI/INFORM
Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global; ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry; ProQuest Central
database.
Carmona, M., Carmona, S., & Gallent, N. (2003). Delivering New Homes. Processes,
planners and providers. (1st. ed.). London, UK: Routledge.
Carp, J. C. (1986). Design participation: new roles, new tools. Design Studies, 7(3), 125-132.
Carter, N. (1990). Housing development in Australia: The implications of production and
approval processes for availability and choice. Journal of Property Research, 7(3),
153-172.
Carù, A., Cova, B., & Pace, S. (2004). Project Success:: Lessons from the Andria Case.
European Management Journal, 22(5), 532-545.
Appendix
340
Chakrabarty, B. K. (1987). Affordable dwelling-layout system design--A model for
optimization. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 21(5), 283-289.
Chan, A. P. C., & Chan, A. P. L. (2004). Key performance indicators for measuring
construction success. Benchmarking, 11(2), 203-221. Retrieved 2 October 2012, from
ProQuest Central database.
Chan, A. P. C., Ho, D. C. K., & Tam, C. M. (2001). Design and build project success factors:
multivariate analysys. Journal of Construction Engineering Management(127), 2.
Retrieved 10 July 2010
Chapman, J. E. (2003). Reliability and Validity of the Progress Questionnaire: An Adaptation
of the Outcome Questionnaire. Drexel University, Philadelphia. Retrieved from
http://144.118.25.24/bitstream/1860/193/8/chapman_thesis.pdf
Che Ibrahim, N. A. (2005). Kajian Terhadap Projek Perumahan di Kelantan. Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai. Retrieved from
http://eprints.utm.my/4445/1/NorAdilahCheIbrahimKPFKA2005TTT.pdf
Chen, P., Qiang, M., & Wang, J. N. (2009). Project management in the chinese construction
industry: Six-case study. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
135(10), 1016-1026. Retrieved 12 July 2010, from Compendex database.
Cheng, M., Su, C., & You, H. (2003). Optimal Project Organizational Structure for
Construction Management. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
129(1), 70-79.
Chitsomboon, P. (2006). Everland first to exit Rehabco with SET comeback next week,
Bangkok Post (Thailand): Bangkok Post (Thailand).
Chohan, A. H., Memon, A. W., Agro, N., Che-Ani, A. I., & Ishak, N. H. (2011). Developing
a User's Feedback Index to Improve the Design and Construction Phase of Private
Housing in Developing Metropolitan. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary
Research In Business, 2(9), 463-483. Retrieved 5/10/2012, from ProQuest Central
database.
Chow, K. F. (2008). The Final Payment in a Construction Contract: Pressures on Account
Finalisation: Tiong Seng Contractors (Pte) Ltd v Chuan Lim Construction Pte Ltd.
Singapore Academy of Law Journal, 20(1), 245 - 250.
Chow, K. F., & Chan, P. C. F. (2009). Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review of
Singapore Cases. Building and Construction Law, Annual Review 2009(2009), 107 -
122.
CIDB (2010). Construction Sector Growth and Malaysian Economic Trend (Constant Price)
for Year 1980 - Q1 2009. Retrieved 29 June 2010, from
http://www.cidb.gov.my/v6/files/pub/ConstructionSectorGrowth&MalaysianEconomi
cTrend.pdf
Appendix
341
CIDB (NA). CIDB Specialisation. Retrieved 29/10/2012, from http://www.daftar-
ssm.com/index_files/cidb.htm
Clancy, R. (2009). Over supply concerns for Malaysia real estate market in 2010. Retrieved
30 April 2010, from http://www.propertycommunity.com/property-in-malaysia/499-
over-supply-malaysia-real-estate-market-2010.html
Clark, M. I., Berry, T. R., Spence, J. C., Nykiforuk, C., Carlson, M., Blanchard, C. (2010).
Key stakeholder perspectives on the development of walkable neighbourhoods.
Health & Place, 16(1), 43-50.
Cleland, D. I. (1998). Stakeholder Management. Project Management Handbook, 55-72.
Coldwell, D. S., Burchett-Williams, A. Q., & Celeste, M. L. (2010). Liquidated Damages.
Franchise Law Journal, 29(4), 211-230. from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM
Global; ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry; ProQuest Central database.
Collis, J., & Hussey, R. (2003). Business research: a practical guide for undergraduate and
postgraduate students (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Coln, L. B. (2009). Deconstructing warranties in the construction industry, Florida Bar
Journal (Vol. 83, pp. 8+).
Cooper, D. F., MacDonald, D. H., & Chapman, C. B. (1985). Risk analysis of a construction
cost estimate. International Journal of Project Management, 3(3), 141-149.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). California: Sage Publications.
Daniel, W. M. C., Albert, P. C. C., Patrick, T. I. L., & James, M. W. W. (2010). Identifying
the critical success factors for target cost contracts in the construction industry.
Journal of Facilities Management, 8(3), 179-201. Retrieved 2 October 2012, from
ProQuest Central database.
Danuri, M. S. M., Munaaim, M. E. C., & Yen, L. C. (2009). Liquidated damages in the
Malaysian standard forms of construction contract: the law and the practice.
Construction law journal, 25(2), 103.
de Wit, A. (1988). Measurement of project success. International Journal of Project
Management, 6(3), 164-170. Retrieved 19 October 2010, from ScienceDirect
database.
Dearnley, C. (2005). A reflection on the use of semi-structured interviews. Nurse Researcher,
13(1), 19-28. Retrieved 9/10/2012, from ProQuest Central database.
DeCoster, J. (1998). Overview of Factor Analysis. 10, from http://www.stat-
help.com/factor.pdf
Appendix
342
DED (2000). Single-Family Detached Housing Unit Trends by Planning Subarea. Retrieved
22 September 2009, from
http://biz.loudoun.gov/Portals/0/PDF/growth/growth_summary_2008/a4b.pdf
Dekker, K., de Vos, S., Musterd, S., & van Kempen, R. (2011). Residential Satisfaction in
Housing Estates in European Cities: A Multi-level Research Approach. Housing
Studies, 26(04), 479-499. Retrieved 2012/10/04
Del Cano, A., & De La Cruz, M. P. (2002). Integrated methodology for project risk
management. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 128(6), 473-
485. Retrieved 7 July 2010, from Engineering Village database.
Derus, M. M., & Aziz, A. R. A. (2006). Kompetensi Pengurus Projek Sektor Awam Yang
Unggul: Kerangka Kerja Konseptual dan Metodologi Kajian. Paper presented at the
Management in Construction Researchers Association (MICRA 2006). Kuala
Lumpur: MICRA & Kulliyah of Architecture and Environmental Design,
International Islamic University Malaysia, UIAM,. Retrieved 4 October 2012, from
https://www.box.com/shared/oh2grqn2y4
Diaz-Serrano, L. (2009). Disentangling the housing satisfaction puzzle: Does homeownership
really matter? Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(5), 745-755. Retrieved 5/10/2012
Dinsmore, P. C. (1995). Will the Real Stakeholders Please Stand Up? PM Network, 9-10.
Doloi, H., Sawhney, A., Iyer, K. C., & Rentala, S. (2012). Analysing factors affecting delays
in Indian construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 30(4),
479-489.
DoSM (2010). Population Statistics, Malaysia. Retrieved 29 June 2010, from
http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/images/stories/files/LatestReleases/population/ms
ia_broadage_1963-2008.pdf
http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/images/stories/files/ArchiveTimeSeries/Perangkaan_Pen
duduk.pdf
DoSM (2012). Economic Census 2011 Construction, Economic Census (pp. 100). Putrajaya:
Department of Statistics, Malaysia.
Dursun, O., & Stoy, C. (2012). Determinants of construction duration for building projects in
Germany. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 19(4), 444 -
468.
Eduljee, G. H. (2000). Trends in risk assessment and risk management. The Science of The
Total Environment, 249(1-3), 13-23.
Elizabeth Collins, M., Curley, A. M., Clay, C., & Lara, R. (2005). Evaluation of social
services in a HOPE VI housing development: resident and staff perceptions of
successes and barriers. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28(1), 47-59.
Appendix
343
Elsinga, M., & Hoekstra, J. (2005). Homeownership and housing satisfaction. Journal of
Housing and the Built Environment, 20(4), 401-401. Retrieved 4 October 2012, from
ProQuest Central database.
Emmitt, S., & Gorse, C. (2009). Construction Communication. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
Ltd.
Emmitt, S., & Gorse, C. A. (2006). Communication in Construction Teams. New York,
London: Taylor & Francis.
Emond, J., & Steins, C. (2011). Project Schedule and Budgeting. In Pro Web Project
Management (pp. 59-77): Apress.
Engineers, I. F. o. C. (1999). FIDIC 1999, 2.1 Right of Access to the Site (Vol. 2.1). Geneva:
FIDIC.
Enshassi, A., Mohamed, S., & Abushaban, S. (2009). Factors affecting the performance of
Construction projects in the Gaza Strip. Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management, 15(3), 269-280. Retrieved 7 July 2010, from Engineering Village
database.
EPU (2006). Ninth Malaysia Plan, 2006-2010. In P. M. s. D. Malaysia (Ed.) (pp. 559).
Putrajaya: EPU.
Etheridge, D. (2012). Natural Ventilation of Buildings: Theory, Measurement and Design:
John Wiley & Sons.
Eyster, J. J. (1988). Sharing risks and decision making: Recent trends in the negotiation of
management contracts. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,
29(1), 42-55. Retrieved 23 September 2009
Ezeanya, A. C. (2004). Malaysian housing policy: Prospects and obstacles of National Vision
2020. Paper presented at the International Conference on Adequate & Affordable
Housing for All. Toronto, Canada: Centre for Urban and Community Studies,
University of Toronto. Retrieved 7 September 2009, from
http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca/pdfs/housingconference/Ezeanya_Malaysian_Ho
using_P.pdf
Fan, M., Lin, N.-P., & Sheu, C. (2008). Choosing a project risk-handling strategy: An
analytical model. International Journal of Production Economics, 112(2), 700-713.
Faridi, A. S., & El-Sayegh, S. M. (2006). Significant factors causing delay in the UAE
construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 24(11), 1167-1176.
Retrieved 12 July 2010, from Compendex database.
Field, A. P. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: SAGE.
Filho, A. P. G., Andrade, J. C. S., & Marinho, M. M. d. O. (2010). A safety culture maturity
model for petrochemical companies in Brazil. Safety Science, 48(5), 615-624.
Retrieved 2 August 2010, from ScienceDirect database.
Appendix
344
Filmer, A. R. (2006). Backstage Space: The Place of the Performer. The University of
Sydney, Sydney. Retrieved from
http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/1415/8/08chapter7.pdf
Folaranmi, A. O. (2012). User Participation in Housing Unit Provision in Kwara State
Nigeria: A Basis for Sustainable Design in Mass Housing Design. Interdisciplinary
Journal of Contemporary Research In Business, 4(2), 723-732. from ABI/INFORM
Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global; ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry; ProQuest Central
database.
Forrest, R. (2008). Risk, Governance and the Housing Market. Housing Finance
International, 23(1), 11. Retrieved 14 September 2009
Fortune, J., & White, D. (2006). Framing of project critical success factors by a systems
model. International Journal of Project Management, 24(1), 53-65.
Foster-Bobroff, L. (2011). How to negotiate with a contractor. The Courier, from
http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/90617
4965?accountid=13380, from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global;
ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry; ProQuest Central database.
Frable, F. (1997). How to select the best architect, designer or consultant. Nation's Restaurant
News, 31(28), 42-43. from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global;
ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry; ProQuest Central database.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2007). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education
(6th. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill International.
Francis, C. D. (2003). Managing the project schedule. Cost Engineering, 45(5), 6-6. from
ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global; ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry;
ProQuest Central database.
Frödell, M., Josephson, P.-E., & Lindahl, G. (2008). Swedish construction clients' views on
project success and measuring performance. Journal of Engineering, Design and
Technology, 6(1), 21-32. Retrieved 2 October 2012, from ProQuest Central database.
Gambatese, J. A. (2000). Owner involvement in construction site safety (pp. 661-670).
Orlando, FL, United states: American Society of Civil Engineers. Retrieved 12 July
2010, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/40475(278)71
Gamper, C. D., & Turcanu, C. (2009). Can public participation help managing risks from
natural hazards? Safety Science, 47(4), 522-528.
Gillen, M., & Golland, A. (2004). Housing Development. Theory, process and practice (1st.
ed.). London, UK: Routledge.
Gloskowski, W. (1975). House warranties. Changing Times (pre-1986), 29(2), 56-56. from
ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global; ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry;
ProQuest Central database.
Appendix
345
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The
Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597 - 607. Retrieved 31/10/2012
Goodwin, L. D., & Goodwin, W. L. (1984). Are Validity and Reliability "Relevant" in
Qualitative Evaluation Research? Evaluation & the Health Professions, 7(4), 413-
426.
Gorke, T. (1999). Fail safe: Surety for construction projects. Risk Management, 46(6), 10-16.
from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global; ABI/INFORM Trade &
Industry; ProQuest Central database.
GPG (2010). Rapid Recovery Expected For Malaysia's Real Estate Market. Retrieved 30
April 2010, from http://www.nuwireinvestor.com/articles/rapid-recovery-expected-
for-malaysias-real-estate-market-54652.aspx
Groton, J. P., & Smith, G. A. (1998). Weighing the options. Journal of Management in
Engineering, 14(6), 69-72. Retrieved 12 July 2010, from Compendex database.
Hair, J. F., Balck, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis
(6th ed.): Pearson Prentice Hall.
Halil Shevket, N., & Aysal, S. (2004). Owner's Factor in Value-Based Project Management
in Construction. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 97-103. Retrieved 5 October 2012,
from ProQuest Central database.
Hanna, A. S. (2007). Achieve Greater Project Success and Profitability with Pre-Construction
Planning. Contracting Business, 64(6), 98-100. Retrieved 2 October 2012, from
ProQuest Central database.
Harris, R. (1998). The silence of the experts: "Aided self-help housing", 1939-1954. Habitat
International, 22(2), 165-189.
Hatush, Z., & Skitmore, M. (1997). Criteria for contractor selection [Article]. Construction
Management & Economics, 15(1), 19-38. from bsh database.
Hernon, P., & Schwartz, C. (2009). Reliability and validity. Library & Information
Science Research, 31(2), 73-74.
Holt, G. D. (1998). Which contractor selection methodology? International Journal of
Project Management, 16(3), 153-164.
Holt, G. D., Olomolaiye, P. O., & Harris, F. C. (1994). Evaluating prequalification criteria in
contractor selection. Building and Environment, 29(4), 437-448.
Hoon, O. C. (2010). Small Office Home Office (SOHO). In N. P. I. P. (NAPIC) (Ed.).
Putrajaya: National Property Information Programme (NAPIC)
Appendix
346
Hoonakker, P., Carayon, P., & Loushine, T. (2010). Barriers and benefits of quality
management in the construction industry: An empirical study. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 21(9), 953-969. Retrieved 2012/11/21
Huang, X., & Hinze, J. (2006a). Owner's role in construction safety. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 132(2), 164-173. Retrieved 7 July 2010, from
Engineering Village database.
Huang, X., & Hinze, J. (2006b). Owner's role in construction safety: Guidance model.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(2), 174-181. Retrieved 7
July 2010, from Engineering Village database.
Hurleyl, A. E., Scandura, T. A., Schriesheim, C. A., Brannick, M. T., Seers, A., Vandenberg,
R. J., et al. (1997). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: guidelines, issues,
and alternatives. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 18, 667 - 683. Retrieved
8/10/2012
Iacobucci, D. (2010a). Structural equations modeling: Fit Indices, sample size, and advanced
topics. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 90-98. Retrieved 9/10/2012
Ibbs, W., Nguyen, L. D., & Lee, S. (2007). Quantified impacts of project change. Journal of
Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 133(1), 45-52. Retrieved
12 July 2010, from Compendex database.
Idrus, N., & Siong, H. C. (2008). Affordable and Quality Housing Through The Low Cost
Housing Provision in Malaysia. University Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai. Retrieved
from
http://eprints.utm.my/6624/1/NoraliahIdrus_HCSiong2008_AffordableAndQualityHo
usingThrough.pdf
IKPO, J. I. (2005). The Builder's Liability Beyond The Defects Liability. Civil Engineering
Dimension, 7(1), 16 - 21.
Ile, U. (2011). Landscape Composition Development Stages In Multi-Storey Residential
Areas Of The Baltic Sea Region. Mokslas : Lietuvos Ateitis, 3(3), 16-n/a. from
ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global; ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry;
ProQuest Central database.
Indayati, S. (2000). Jumlah Penduduk dan Keluasan Setiap Negeri di Malaysia. Retrieved 17
July 2010, from http://www.scribd.com/doc/3832580/Jadual-1-Jumlah-Penduduk-
dan-Keluasan-setiap-Negeri-di-Malaysia
Ireland, T. (2001). Which project-execution approach is best for you? IEEE Industry
Applications Magazine, 7(6), 33-40. Retrieved 7 July 2010, from Engineering Village
database.
Isidore, L., & Back, W. (2002). Multiple Simulation Analysis for Probabilistic Cost and
Schedule Integration. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 128(3),
211-219. Retrieved 5 October 2012
Appendix
347
Ismail, A. F. (2007). Perlaksanaan Kaedah Pengeluaran Perakuan Siap Dan Pematuhan
(CCC) oleh Para Profesional. Paper presented at the Persidangan Mempertingkatkan
Sistem Pemyampaian Perkhidmatan Kerajaan. Retrieved 17 September 2009, from
http://jpbd.pahang.gov.my/pdf/CCC.pdf
Israel, G. D. (2003). Determining Sample Size. from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/PD006
Iyer, K. C., & Jha, K. N. (2005). Factors affecting cost performance: evidence from Indian
construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 23(4), 283-295.
Retrieved 7 July 2010, from Science Direct database.
Jaśkowski, P., & Biruk, S. (2011). The method for improving stability of construction project
schedules through buffer allocation. Technological and Economic Development of
Economy, 17(3), 429-444. Retrieved 2012/11/10
Jergeas, G. F., Williamson, E., Skulmoski, G. J., & Thomas, J. L. (2000). Stakeholder
management on construction projects. AACE International Transactions, P12.11-
P12.16. from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global; ABI/INFORM Trade &
Industry; ProQuest Central database.
Johnson, J. (1979). A plain man's guide to participation. Design Studies, 1(1), 27-30.
Juliano, W. J. (1995). External Communication as an Integral Part of Project Planning. PM
Network, 18-20.
Jusoff, K., Adnan, H., & Nazli, N. F. (2008). Partnering project success criteria in Malaysia.
Canadian Centre of Science and Education Journal, 1(4), 94-99. Retrieved 5 May
2010
Kalina, D. (2006). How to . . . Select a Planning and Design Consultant. Techniques, 81(8),
44-46. from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global; ABI/INFORM Trade &
Industry; ProQuest Central database.
Kallman, J. W. (1998). Loss control project decision models for the construction industry.
The University of Wisconsin, Madison. Retrieved from Proquest database. Retrieved
from
http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com.ezp01.library.qut.
edu.au/pqdweb?did=732853631&sid=1&Fmt=2&clientId=14394&RQT=309&VNam
e=PQD
Karlsen, J. T. (2010). Project owner involvement for information and knowledge sharing in
uncertainty management. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business,
3(4), 642 - 660. Retrieved 5 October 2012
Kärnä, S., Juha-Matti, J., & Veli-Matti, S. (2009). Modelling structure of customer
satisfaction with construction. Journal of Facilities Management, 7(2), 111-127.
Retrieved 4 October 2012, from ProQuest Central database.
Karunasena, G., & Raufdeen, R. (2010). Post-disaster housing reconstruction: Comparative
study of donor vs owner-driven approaches. International Journal of Disaster
Appendix
348
Resilience in the Built Environment, 1(2), 173-191. Retrieved 5/10/2012, from
ProQuest Central database.
Kashiwagi, D. T. (1999). The construction delivery system of the information age.
Automation in Construction, 8(4), 417-425. Retrieved 12 July 2010, from Inspec
database.
Keivani, R., & Werna, E. (2001). Modes of housing provision in developing countries.
Progress in Planning, 55(2), 65-118.
Kelloway, E. K. (1995). Structural Equation Modelling in Perspective. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 16(3), 215-224. Retrieved 8/10/2012
Kheng, O. C. (2003). Extension of Time and Liquidated Damages in Construction Contracts.
Paper presented at the Construction Contracts and Arbitration. Ipoh, Malaysia. from
http://ckoon-
law.com/Paper/EXTENSION%20OF%20TIME%20AND%20LIQUIDATED%20DA
MAGES.pdf
Kim, H., & Reinschmidt, K. (2011). Effects of Contractors’ Risk Attitude on Competition in
Construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(4), 275-
283. Retrieved 5 October 2012
Kines, P., Andersen, L. P. S., Spangenberg, S., Mikkelsen, K. L., Dyreborg, J., Zohar, D.
(2010). Improving construction site safety through leader-based verbal safety
communication. Journal of Safety Research, 41(5), 399-406. Retrieved 5 October
2012
Kline, R. B. (In press). Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis. In Applied
quantitative analysis in the social sciences (pp. 73). New York: Routledge. Retrieved
8/10/2012
Kluenker, C. H. (1996). Construction manager as project integrator. Journal of Management
in Engineering, 12(2), 17-20. Retrieved 7 July 2010, from Engineering Village
database.
Kocherlakota, N. R., & Ohanian, L. E. (2007). Model Fit and Model Selection/Commentary.
Review - Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 89(4), 349-369. from ProQuest Central
database.
Kog, Y., & Loh, P. (2012). Critical Success Factors for Different Components of
Construction Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138(4),
520-528.
Konold, T. R., Fan, X., Penelope, P., Eva, B., & Barry, M. (2010). Hypothesis Testing and
Confidence Intervals. In International Encyclopedia of Education (pp. 216-222).
Oxford: Elsevier. Retrieved 21 July 2010, from ScienceDirect.
Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K., Pina, S. A. M. G., Ruschel, R. C., Labaki, L. C., Bertolli, S. R.,
Filho, F. B., et al. (2005). A house design assistance program for the self-building
Appendix
349
process of the region of Campinas, Brazil: Evaluation through a case study. Habitat
International, 29(1), 95-111.
KPKT (1999). Housing in the New Millennium - Malaysian Perspective. Retrieved 27
September 2009, from http://ehome.kpkt.gov.my/ehome/ehomebi/profil/artikel3.cfm
Kumaraswamy, M. M., & Chan, D. W. M. (1995). Determinants of construction duration.
Construction Management and Economics, 13(3), 209-217. Retrieved 2012/11/10
LAM (2008). Certificate of Completion and Compliance. In T. B. o. A. Malaysia (Ed.) (pp.
3). Kuala Lumpur: LAM.
Lampel, J., Miller, R., & Floricel, S. (1996). Impact of owner involvement on innovation in
large projects: Lessons from power plants construction. International Business
Review, 5(6), 561-578.
Lawrence, R. J. (1982). Trends in architectural design methods--the liability' of public
participation. Design Studies, 3(2), 97-103.
LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of Reliability and Validity in
Ethnographic Research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 31-60.
Leguizamon, S. J., & Ross, J. M. (2012). Revealed preference for relative status: Evidence
from the housing market. Journal of Housing Economics, 21(1), 55-65. Retrieved
5/10/2012
Lester, A., & Mackay, I. (2011). Discussion: Extension of time claimsManagement,
Procurement and Law (pp. 99 - 101). Institution of Civil Engineers. from
http://www.icevirtuallibrary.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/content/article/10.1680/mp
al.2011.164.2.99
Lim, C. S., & Mohamed, M. Z. (1999). Criteria of project success: an exploratory re-
examination. International Journal of Project Management, 17(4), 243-248.
Ling, F. Y. Y., & Liu, M. (2004). Using neural network to predict performance of design-
build projects in Singapore. Building and Environment, 39(10), 1263-1274.
Ling, F. Y. Y., & Peh, S. (2005). Key Performance Indicators For Measuring Contractors'
Performance. Architectural Science Review, 48(4), 357-365. Retrieved 2012/10/04
Ling, F. Y. Y., & Poh, B. H. M. (2008). Problems encountered by owners of design-build
projects in Singapore. International Journal of Project Management, 26(2), 164-173.
Louise Barriball, K., & While, A. (1994). Collecting data using a semi-structured interview: a
discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19(2), 328-335. Retrieved 1 October
2012
Lundy, J. C., Jr., & Padgitt, K. (2003). Revenue Tests for Contractors: Small Contractor or
Small Contract? Construction Accounting & Taxation, 13(6), 5-12. Retrieved 5
October 2012, from ProQuest Central database.
Appendix
350
Lyons, M. (2009). Building Back Better: The Large-Scale Impact of Small-Scale Approaches
to Reconstruction. World Development, 37(2), 385-398. Retrieved 1 October 2009
MacKie III, J. G. (1985). Liability of construction professionals under the implied warranty
of habitability. Mississippi College law review, 5(2), 135.
Mahamud, R., & Abdul Ghani, S. (2004). Pengaruh Insentif Keatas Pasaran Harta Tanah
Perumahan. Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang. Retrieved from Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia ePrints database. Retrieved from
http://eprints.utm.my/1090/1/Rosadah_Mahamud.pdf
Mahmood, A., & Hussin, A. A. (2004). Pembangunan Harta Tanah: Perundangan dan
Prosedur Pengurusan (1st. ed.). Pulau Pinang: Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Malthouse, E. (2001). Checking assumptions of normality before conducting factor analyses.
Journal of consumer psychology, 10(1-2), 8. Retrieved 20/10/2012
Markland, D. (2007). The golden rule is that there are no golden rules: A commentary on
Paul Barrett’s recommendations for reporting model fit in structural equation
modelling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 851-858. Retrieved
9/10/2012
Marohabutr, T. (2008). Bangkok’s Housing Market and Its Trend: A Slowdown from
Recovery since 1997 Economic Crisis. Housing Express(September 2008), 9.
Retrieved 22 September 2009
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In Search of Golden Rules: Comment on
Hypothesis-Testing Approaches to Setting Cutoff Values for Fit Indexes and Dangers
in Overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) Findings. Structural Equation Modeling:
A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(3), 320-341. Retrieved 2012/10/08
McGreevey, S. L. (2005). The myth of the one-year warranty and other construction warranty
issues. Probate and property, 19(4), 41.
Melikov, A. K. (2004). Personalized ventilation. Indoor Air, 14, 157-167.
Mendonça, P., & Bragança, L. (2007). Sustainable housing with mixedweight strategy--A
case study. Building and Environment, 42(9), 3432-3443. Retrieved 23 July 2010,
from ScienceDirect database.
Meng, X. (2002). Guarantees for Contractor’s Performance and Owner’s Payment in China.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 128(3), 232-237. Retrieved 5
October 2012
Metri, B. A. (2005). TQM Critical Success Factors for Construction Firms. Management :
Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, 10(2), 61-72. Retrieved 2 October
2012, from ProQuest Central database.
Appendix
351
MHLG (1999a). Housing in the New Millennium - Malaysian Perspective. Retrieved 10
March 2010, from http://ehome.kpkt.gov.my/ehome/profil/artikel3.cfm
MHLG (1999b). Towards Successful Housing Development in Malaysia. Retrieved 10 March
2010, from http://ehome.kpkt.gov.my/ehome/profil/artikel4.cfm
Miller, M. J. (NA). Reliability and Validity, RES 600: Graduate Research Methods (pp. 3).
Phoenix, Arizona: Western International University.
Ministry_of_Finance_Malaysia (2011). Pekeliling Perbendaharaan Bil. 5 Tahun 2011. In
Ministry_of_Finance_Malaysia (Ed.) (pp. 86). Putrajaya: Ministry of Finance
Malaysia.
Mohamed, S. (2002). Safety Climate in Construction Site Environments. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 128(5), 375-384. Retrieved 5 October
2012
Mohammed, K. A., & Isah, A. D. (2012). Causes of Delay in Nigeria Construction Industry.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research In Business, 4(2), 785-794. from
ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global; ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry;
ProQuest Central database.
Mohd Nor, K. (2008). Self-certification versus private certification doctrines on the issuance
of the Certificate of Completion and Compliance for buildings in Malaysia. Journal of
Building Appraisal, 4(2), 125-131. from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM
Global; ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry; ProQuest Central database.
Mohit, M. A., Ibrahim, M., & Rashid, Y. R. (2009). Assessment of residential satisfaction in
newly designed public low-cost housing in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Habitat
International, In Press, Corrected Proof
Mohit, M. A., & Nazyddah, N. (2011). Social housing programme of Selangor Zakat Board
of Malaysia and housing satisfaction. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment,
26(2), 143-164. Retrieved 5/10/2012
Moore, D. R. (2008). Project Management : Designing Effective Organizational Structures in
Construction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
MoTM (2009). Malaysia My Second Home Programme: House
Purchase.http://www.mm2h.gov.my/incentive1.php
Munaaim, M. E. C. (2006). Payment woes among Malaysian contractors. Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai. Retrieved from
http://eprints.utm.my/4983/1/MuhammadEhsanCheMunaamKPFKA2006TTT.pdf
Mutum, D. S. (2011). Non-normal data and SEM. Retrieved 19/10/2012, from
http://www.dilipmutum.com/2011/07/normality-issues-in-sem.html
Appendix
352
NAPIC (2009). NAPIC Overall Statistics. In V. a. P. S. D. NAPIC, Ministry of Finance,
Malaysia (Ed.). Putrajaya: Valuation and Property Services Department, Ministry of
Finance, Malaysia.
Natarelli, J., & Mercado, R. S. C. P. A. C. (2007). Why construction contractors fail.
Construction Accounting & Taxation, 17(6), 37-42. Retrieved 5 October 2012, from
ProQuest Central database.
Natividade-Jesus, E., Coutinho-Rodrigues, J., & Antunes, C. H. (2007). A multicriteria
decision support system for housing evaluation. Decision Support Systems, 43(3),
779-790.
NCLT (2009). Housing Ladder: Types of Properties Retrieved 6 September 2009, from
http://www.nclt.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=43
Nguyen, L. D., Ogunlana, S. O., & Do Thi Xuan, L. (2004). A study on project success
factors in large construction projects in Vietnam. Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, 11(6), 404-413. Retrieved 2 October 2012, from ProQuest
Central database.
Nielsen, K. R. (2006). Risk management: lessons from six continents. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 22(2), 61-67. Retrieved 12 July 2010, from Inspec
database.
Nieto-Morote, A., & Ruz-Vila, F. (2010). A fuzzy approach to construction project risk
assessment. International Journal of Project Management, In Press, Corrected Proof
Nissen, S. (2007). Standing tall in the competition for contractors. American Agent & Broker,
79(7), 32-34,36. Retrieved 5 October 2012, from ProQuest Central database.
Noguchi, M., & Hernàndez-Velasco, C. R. (2005). A `mass custom design' approach to
upgrading conventional housing development in Mexico. Habitat International,
29(2), 325-336.
NRE (2010b). National Land Code (Act 56 of 1965) & Regulations. Petaling Jaya:
International Law Book Services.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
O'Leary, A. F. (1998). Construction delay and time extensions. Design Cost Data, 42(6), 44-
44. from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global; ABI/INFORM Trade &
Industry; ProQuest Central database.
OCASI (2009). What are the different types of housing available? Retrieved 6 September
2009, from http://www.settlement.org/sys/faqs_detail.asp?faq_id=4000328
Ofori, G. (2001). Indicators for measuring construction industry development in developing
countries. Building Research & Information, 29(1), 40-50. Retrieved 2012/11/20
Appendix
353
Ofori, G., & Han, S. S. (2003). Testing hypotheses on construction and development using
data on China's provinces, 1990-2000. Habitat International, 27(1), 37-62. Retrieved
21 July 2010, from ScienceDirect database.
Ogu, V. I., & Ogbuozobe, J. E. (2001). Housing policy in Nigeria: towards enablement of
private housing development. Habitat International, 25(4), 473-492.
Olander, S., & Landin, A. (2005). Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the implementation
of construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 23(4), 321-
328.
Ong, H. C., & Lenard, D. (2002). Partnerships between Stakeholders in the Provision of and
Access to Affordable Housing in Malaysia. Paper presented at the FIG 2002
International Congress. Washington D.C. U.S.A. Retrieved 10 November 2009, from
http://www.fig.net/pub/fig_2002/TS10-2/TS10_2_ong_lenard.pdf
Othman, A. A., Torrance, J. V., & Hamid, M. A. (2006). Factors influencing the construction
time of civil engineering projects in Malaysia. Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, 13(5), 481-501. Retrieved 12 December 2011
Padhi, S. S., & Mohapatra, P. K. (2009). Centralized construction contractor selection
considering past performance of contractors: a case of India. Operational Research,
9(2), 199-224. from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global; ABI/INFORM
Trade & Industry; ProQuest Central database.
Palaneeswaran, E., Ng, T., & Kumaraswamy, M. (2006). Client satisfaction and quality
management systems in contractor organizations. Building and Environment, 41(11),
1557-1570.
Permentier, M., Bolt, G., & van Ham, M. (2011). Determinants of Neighbourhood
Satisfaction and Perception of Neighbourhood Reputation. Urban Studies, 48(5), 977-
996.
Pertubuhan_Akitek_Malaysia (1998). PAM Form of Contract. In P. A. Malaysia (Ed.) (pp.
20). Kuala Lumpur.
Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1988). Project success and definition and measurement
techniques. Project Management Journal, 19(1), 67-71.
Pinto, J. K., Slevin, D. P., & English, B. (2009). Trust in projects: An empirical assessment of
owner/contractor relationships. International Journal of Project Management, 27(6),
638-648. Retrieved 12 July 2010, from Compendex database.
PMI (1996). Project Management Body of Knowledge. PA: Newton Square.
PMOM (2009). REHDA Malaysia 39th Aniversary Dinner. Retrieved 7 September 2009,
from
http://www.pmo.gov.my/?menu=speech&page=1676&news_id=157&speech_cat=2
Appendix
354
Proverbs, D. G., Holt, G. D., & Olomolaiye, P. O. (1998). Factors impacting construction
project duration: a comparison between France, Germany and the u.k. Building and
Environment, 34(2), 197-204.
PWD (1983a). Standard Form of Contract to be used for Contract Based on Drawings and
Specifications: PWD Form 203 (Rev. 10/83). In P. W. Department (Ed.) (pp. 32).
Kuala Lumpur: Jabatan Percetakan Negara.
PWD (1983b). Standard Form of Contract to be used where Bills of Quantities form part of
the Contract: PWD Form 203A (Rev. 10/83) Contract. In P. W. Department (Ed.) (pp.
2). Kuala Lumpur: Percetakan Negara.
Quick, K. S., & Feldman, M. S. (2011). Distinguishing Participation and Inclusion. Journal
of Planning Education and Research, 31(3), 272-290.
Rachelle, C. (2006). Steaming on ahead Thuringowa developments surge, Townsville
Bulletin.
Rahman, M. M., & Kumaraswamy, M. M. (2004). Potential for implementing relational
contracting and joint risk management. Journal of Management in Engineering,
20(4), 178-189. Retrieved 7 July 2010, from Engineering Village database.
Rand, E. C., Hirano, S., & Kelman, I. (2011). Post-tsunami housing resident satisfaction in
Aceh. International Development Planning Review, 33(2), 187-211. Retrieved 4
October 2012, from ProQuest Central database.
Rebecca Thatcher, E. (2001). The ins and outs of functional completion. Engineered Systems,
18(10), 30-30. from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global; ABI/INFORM
Trade & Industry; ProQuest Central database.
Redström, J. (2006). Towards user design? On the shift from object to user as the subject of
design. Design Studies, 27(2), 123-139.
Reed, R., & Mills, A. (2007). Identifying the drivers behind housing preferences of first-time
owners. Property Management, 25(3), 225-241.
Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., & Pugh, R. H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item
response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance.
Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 552-566. Retrieved 8/10/2012, from pdh database.
Reuschke, D. (2012). Dwelling conditions and preferences in a multilocational way of life for
job reasons. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 27(1), 11-30. Retrieved
5/10/2012
Ribeiro Ferreira, M. L., & Rogerson, J. H. (1999). The quality management role of the owner
in different types of construction contract for process plant. Total Quality
Management, 10(3), 401-411. from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global;
ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry; ProQuest Central database.
Appendix
355
Ringen, K., Seegal, J., & England, A. (1995). Safety and Health in the Construction Industry.
Annual Review of Public Health, 16(1), 165-188.
Rojanamon, P., Chaisomphob, T., & Bureekul, T. (2012). Public participation in development
of small infrastructure projects. Sustainable Development, 20(5), 320-334.
Salgado, C. A. (2005). Construction project organizational structuring. Unpublished
3178730, University of Maryland, College Park, United States -- Maryland. Retrieved
from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global; ABI/INFORM Trade &
Industry; ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT) database.
Retrieved from
http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/30499
2383?accountid=13380
Sanvido, V., Grobler, F., Parfitt, K., Guvenis, M., & Coyle, M. (1992). Critical Success
Factors for Construction Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 118(1), 94-111.
Schattan P. Coelho, V., & Favareto, A. (2008). Questioning the Relationship between
Participation and Development: A case study of the Vale do Ribeira, Brazil. World
Development, 36(12), 2937-2952.
Schaufelberger, J. E. (2000a). Delivering quality school projects (pp. 603-610). Orlando, FL,
United states: American Society of Civil Engineers. Retrieved 7 July 2010, from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/40475(278)65
Schaufelberger, J. E. (2000b). Strategies for successful partnering relationships (pp. 463-
470). Orlando, FL, United states: American Society of Civil Engineers. Retrieved 7
July 2010, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/40475(278)50
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation
modelling (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Serpell, A. (1999). Integrating quality systems in construction projects: the Chilean case.
International Journal of Project Management, 17(5), 317-322.
Shapira, A., Laufer, A., & J Shenhar, A. (1994). Anatomy of decision making in project
planning teams. International Journal of Project Management, 12(3), 172-182.
Shirazi, B., Langford, D. A., & Rowlinson, S. M. (1996). Organizational structures in the
construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 14(3), 199-212.
Retrieved 2012/11/10
Shuid, S. (2004). Low Medium Cost Housing in Malaysia: Issues and Challanges. Paper
presented at the APNHR Conference. Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong.
from http://www.iut.nu/Malaysia_low%20cost%20housing.pdf
Simpson, G. W., Henke, M., Beamer, A., & Bennett, R. (2004). Public involvement - A
critical success factor for urban pipeline design and construction San Diego, CA,
Appendix
356
United states: American Society of Civil Engineers. Retrieved 7 July 2010, from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/40574(2001)67
Singh, D., & Tiong, R. (2006). Contractor Selection Criteria: Investigation of Opinions of
Singapore Construction Practitioners. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 132(9), 998-1008.
Sloman, K. N. (2010). Research trends in descriptive analysis [Report]. The Behavior Analyst
Today, 11(1), 20+. Retrieved 2012/10/8, from Health Reference Center Academic
database.
Smith, C. (1998). Building your home: An insider’s guide. Washington, DC: Home Builder
Press.
Smith, C., Dunnett, N., & Clayden, A. (2008). Residential Landscape Sustainability : A
Checklist Tool. Chicester: Wiley-Blackwell
Song, L., Mohamed, Y., & AbouRizk, S. M. (2006). Evaluating Contractor's Early
Involvement in Design. AACE International Transactions, PMS61-PMS68. from
ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global; ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry;
ProQuest Central database.
Soper, R. J., Davis, T., Jackson, P., Vraspir, A. L., & Goan, R. (1992). Panel discussion:
construction contract trends for the 90s (pp. 219-220). New York, NY, USA: IEEE.
Retrieved 7 July 2010, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/PAPCON.1992.186302
SPNB (2009). Syarikat Perumahan Negara Berhad: Mission & Vision. Retrieved 7
September 2009, from http://www.spnb.com.my/eng/corporate/about_mission.htm
Stauffer, M., Grimm, P., & White, D. (1977). Owner's quality assurance as a tool for
technology transfer. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 4(6-8), 283-287.
Stephens, K. (2010). Sterling not ready to settle on low bid: School board plans to instead
negotiate with contractor for best deal. McClatchy - Tribune Business News, from
http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/31151
5650?accountid=13380, from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global;
ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry; ProQuest Central database.
Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences (4th ed.).
Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Stewin, O. Y. L. (1988). Reliability and Validity: Misnomers for qualitative research.
Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 20(2), 61 - 67.
Stiegler, M. H. (2000). Contractor's delay prejudices owners. Civil Engineering, 70(6), 74-74.
from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global; ABI/INFORM Trade &
Industry; ProQuest Central database.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.
Appendix
357
Sufian, A., & Rahman, R. A. (2008). Quality Housing: Regulatory and Administrative
Framework in Malaysia. International Journal of Economics and Management, 2(1),
141-156. Retrieved 4 January 2010, from UPM eprints database.
Suhr, D. D. (2006). Exploratory or Confirmatory Factor Analysis? Paper presented at the
SUGI 31. San Francisco. Retrieved 8/10/2012, from
http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi31/200-31.pdf
Sweeney, N. J. (2000). Owner participation required. Water Environment & Technology,
12(9), 66. Retrieved 7 July 2010, from ProQuest database.
Tabish, S. Z. S., & Jha, K. N. (2011). Identification and evaluation of success factors for
public construction projects. Construction Management and Economics, 29(8), 809-
823. Retrieved 2012/11/21
Tam, C. M., Deng, Z. M., Zeng, S. X., & Ho, C. S. (2000). Quest for continuous quality
improvement for public housing construction in Hong Kong. Construction
Management & Economics, 18(4), 437-446. Retrieved 5 October 2009
Tan, T.-H. (2008). Determinants of homeownership in Malaysia. Habitat International,
32(3), 318-335.
Tan, Y., Shen, L., & Yao, H. (2011). Sustainable construction practice and contractors’
competitiveness: A preliminary study. Habitat International, 35(2), 225-230.
Retrieved 5 October 2012
Tan, Y. C. (2006). Improving Real Estate Project Delivery in Malaysia: Analysis,
Comparison and Selecting the Best Method. Unpublished Monograph, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Massachusetts. Retrieved from
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/37446/123446723.pdf?sequence=1
Tarakson, S. (2005). Building a new home. Australian Parents, 90-90. Retrieved 23
September 2009
Thabrew, L., Wiek, A., & Ries, R. (2009). Environmental decision making in multi-
stakeholder contexts: applicability of life cycle thinking in development planning and
implementation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(1), 67-76.
Theresa Keoughan, B., Pegg, I., & Martin, J. L. N. (2006). Predicting Construction Duration
of Building Projects. AACE International Transactions, PS151-PS157. from
ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global; ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry;
ProQuest Central database.
Thompson, C. B. (2009). Descriptive Data Analysis. Air Medical Journal, 28(2), 56-59.
Retrieved 8/10/2012
Thompson, T. (2004). Practical completion in building contracts: a legal definition?
Construction law journal, 20(6), 301.
Appendix
358
Tisma, A., Bijlsma, L., & Dammers, E. (2007). Private initiatives in housing developments in
The Netherlands and the role of directed urban design43rd ISOCARP Congress 2007
(p. 7). Antwerp, Belgium. from http://www.china-
up.com/international/case/case/1008.pdf
Toole, T. (2002). Construction Site Safety Roles. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 128(3), 203-210. Retrieved 5 October 2012
Toor, S.-u.-R., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2009). Construction professionals' perception of critical
success factors for large-scale construction projects. Construction Innovation, 9(2),
149-167. Retrieved 2 October 2012, from ProQuest Central database.
Trigunarsyah, B. (2004a). Project owners' role in improving constructability of construction
projects: an example analysis for Indonesia. Construction Management & Economics,
22(8), 861-876. Retrieved 9 July 2010, from Business Source Elite database.
Tryfos, P. (1997). Chapter 14 Factor Analysis. 22. Retrieved 29 December 2010, from
http://www.yorku.ca/ptryfos/f1400.pdf
Turin, D. A. (1973). The construction industry: Its economic significance and its role in
development (2nd. ed.). London: University College Environmental Research Group.
Turpin, J. R. (2008). Credit Crunch Worries Contractors. Air Conditioning, Heating &
Refrigeration News, 233(13), 1-25. Retrieved 5 October 2012, from ProQuest Central
database.
Twinn, S. (1997). An exploratory study examining the influence of translation on the validity
and reliability of qualitative data in nursing research [Article]. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 26(2), 418-423. from afh database.
Twomey, M. (2006). Keeping Construction Projects on Schedule. Area Development Site and
Facility Planning, 41(3), 103-105. from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM
Global; ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry; ProQuest Central database.
Ubani, E. C. (2011). Empirical Analysis of Success Factors in the Implementation of Total
Quality Management in Construction Industries in Nigeria. Interdisciplinary Journal
of Contemporary Research In Business, 2(12), 182-192. Retrieved 2 October 2012,
from ProQuest Central database.
Ulichkin, G. M. (1981). Building failure due to erroneous design solutions. Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, 18(3), 92-96.
Venhaus, H. L. (2012). Designing the Sustainable Site : Integrated Design Strategies for
Small Scale Sites and Residential Landscapes. Hoboken: Wiley
Vennström, A., & Eriksson, P. E. (2010). Client perceived barriers to change of the
construction process. Construction Innovation, 10(2), 126-137. from ABI/INFORM
Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global; ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry; ProQuest Central
database.
Appendix
359
Vestergaard, H. (2006). Single-family detached housing - A branch of paradise or a problem?
In J. Doling & E. Elsinga (Eds.), Home ownership. Getting in, getting from, getting
out. Part II. (pp. 30). Hoersholm: Delft University Press. Retrieved 22 September
2009
VPSD (2005 - 2009). Quarterly Residential Property Stock Report. In M. o. F. M. Valuation
and Property Services Department (Ed.). Putrajaya: Valuation and Property Services
Department, Ministry of Finance, Malaysia.
VPSD (2010). Siaran Media: Pasaran Harta Tanah Malaysia 2009. Putrajaya: Valuation and
Property Services Department, Ministry of Finance, Malaysia.
Walraven, A., & de Vries, B. (2009). From demand driven contractor selection towards value
driven contractor selection. Construction Management and Economics, 27(6), 597-
604. Retrieved 2012/11/10
Wateridge, J. (1998). How can IS/IT projects be measured for success? International Journal
of Project Management, 16(1), 59-63.
Wei Tong, C., & Tung-Tsan, C. (2007). Critical success factors for construction partnering in
Taiwan. International Journal of Project Management, 25(5), 475-484. Retrieved 7
July 2010, from Engineering Village database.
West, N. J. N. (2012). Evaluating the value of contractor involvement in the design phase.
Iowa State University, Iowa. Retrieved from
http://publications.cce.iastate.edu/bitstream/123456789/162/1/Nicola%20West%20M
aster%27s%20Thesis.pdf
Westerveld, E. (2003). The Project Excellence Model®: linking success criteria and critical
success factors. International Journal of Project Management, 21(6), 411-418.
Wong, A. (2008). Significant Changes to Housing Act, REDHA Bulletin (March 2008 ed., pp.
12). Petaling Jaya, Selangor: Real Estate & Housing Developers' Association
Malaysia.
Wroblaski, K. (2011). Are Consultants Worth the Cost? Buildings, 105(2), 24-24. from
ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global; ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry;
ProQuest Central database.
Wulz, F. (1986). The concept of participation. Design Studies, 7(3), 153-162.
Xiao, H., & Proverbs, D. (2003). Factors influencing contractor performance: an international
investigation. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 10(5), 322-
332. Retrieved 5 October 2012
Xiaojin, W., & Jing, H. (2006). The relationships between key stakeholders' project
performance and project success: Perceptions of Chinese construction supervising
engineers. International Journal of Project Management, 24(3), 253-260. Retrieved
12 July 2010, from Inspec database.
Appendix
360
Yang, B., & Li, M.-H. (2010). Ecological engineering in a new town development: Drainage
design in The Woodlands, Texas. Ecological Engineering, 36(12), 1639-1650.
Yasamis, F., Arditi, D., & Mohammadi, J. (2002). Assessing contractor quality performance.
Construction Management and Economics, 20(3), 211-223. Retrieved 2012/10/04
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research Designs and Methods (4th. ed.). California: SAGE
Publications Inc.
Yong, Y. C., & Mustaffa, N. E. (2012). Analysis of factors critical to construction project
success in Malaysia. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management,
19(5), 534-556.
Yu, Q., Yu, X., & Jinghua, W. (2006). Regulation of Construction Completion Acceptance.
China Law & Practice, 1-1. from ABI/INFORM Dateline; ABI/INFORM Global;
ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry; ProQuest Central database.
Zamhari, A. (2008, April - August 2008). Dasar Baru Perumahan Negara. Housing
Development Corporation Buletin, p. 28. from
http://www.hdc.sarawak.gov.my/hdc%20bulletin/apr-aug%202008.pdf
Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Tamošaitiene, J. (2008). Contractor selection of construction
in a competitive environment. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 9(3),
181-187. Retrieved 2012/11/10
Zety Fazilah, B. (2000). Residential property market growth slows. Business Times, pp. 04-
04. Retrieved 5 October 2012, from
http://gateway.library.qut.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/26684
2863?accountid=13380, from ProQuest Central database.
Zou, P. X. W., Zhang, G., & Wang, J. (2007). Understanding the key risks in construction
projects in China. International Journal of Project Management, 25(6), 601-614.